Talk:Lucier (restaurant)/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 01:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. This looks like a fun one. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. 01:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Given all the long quotations, it's not surprising that Earwig picked up a couple of things: 1, 2. As these are clearly quoted, they are not copyright violations, but I would say they are excessive. More paraphrasing is required - entire paragraphs made up mostly of other people's writing should be rewritten, pulling only the choicest quotes and converting the rest into our own voice. The whole The Oregonian section should be reworked. Obviously a lot of the fun of the article is in what critics had to say, but I'd say we're over the WP:LONGQUOTE line here. Although Earwig didn't pick it up, as it's offline, the same goes for the long quoted description of the menu from Melander's article. Paraphrase! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Ganesha811: Thanks for reviewing! I am traveling this week and will not have much time to review your concerns. You can go ahead and fail this nomination, I will have time to re-write the Oregonian section at a later date. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Feel free to ping me when you re-nominate. Happy traveling! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.