Jump to content

Talk:MidCity SmashedBurger/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Another Believer (talk · contribs) 00:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 00:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, as shown by a source spot-check:
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. None found, earwig 11%
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. File:MidCity SmashBurger logo.png is fair use and represents the article
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Meets inclusion criteria

I will be reviewing this article today. This is my first review, I appreciate feedback on how I go about it for future reference. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! User:TrademarkedTWOrantula and I can address concerns you might have about the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I will be adding comments as I see them, and so editors have an opportunity to respond while I am reviewing.

Aight. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • "relaunching the business" the business can be removed or substituted to make the sentence less wordy.
  • the lede refers to the subject almost exclusively as the business while the body refers to it as Midcity. Articles should be used consistently.

Content

[edit]
  • Created a menu with burgers? Did it not already have them? Were they different types of burgers than usual?
  • Where is the fifth location? I can identify North William Avenue, Bend, Sandy Boulevard and Creston-Kenilworth.
  • Alex Frane included the business in Thrillist's late 2021 overview of restaurants around the city. This is in the reception section. Is this good? What is the reception, that the business is notable?
  • Based on the MidCity website, it appears they no long have a pop-up in Bend. It is now in Beaverton, Oregon. It would be good to find when this move occurred if possible.
    • I've added mention of MidCity operating at Binary Brewing in Beaverton in 2024. It is hard to track the exact number of locations, so I've updated the introduction to note that in Oregon the business has operated in both Bend and Beaverton. I expect the article will continue to update over time, but hopefully the current text is GA-criteria compliant. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

[edit]
I would also like a discussion of the sauce, considering it's discussed at length in several sources in the page, including as the main differentiation between them and rival Portland smashburger outlets. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Might you be able to help here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer I won't fail the article based off this so if you'd prefer to focus your efforts elsewhere that's okay. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'm sure there will be further improvements to this section over time, but at least the current text is not problematic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Not sure where to find information on their sauces, but I'll try. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tried starting with this. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Russell quote should be deleted as it's duplicating content already in article (discussion of source #8, opening of reception)
    • I am going to push back here because I do not agree with outright removal. Yes, the paragraph leads with Russell's list inclusion, but the end of the paragraph is his reaction to a different list inclusion, not a discrediting of the travel site as a source. I am fine with TrademarkedTWOrantula's trim, if you are. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address this pending how the Big 7 discussion concludes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
  • Best burgers in the U.S. should be attributed as view of the authors of The Oregonian article rather than stated as recognition of a fact.
    I have reworded this part to note that Russell is commenting on a list placement by a travel site. It includes his own thoughts about MidCity. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the travel site is not actually independently notable, I've removed the best 'in U.S.' claim from the lead. I think Russell's commentary is still appropriate for the article body. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it should be mentioned at all. The only source in the article discussing it discredits it; mentioning it would give undue weight. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above; I do not think the travel site is being discredited. This is an instance of a newspaper staffer commenting on MidCity's list inclusion by a travel site. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the text commenting on the site can be summed up as stopped clock. In terms of source review, they don't name their experts, they don't list authors accreditations. They appear to take money for inclusion on lists (linked from "Advertise with us"), and I cannot see them declaring this in pieces. They self-identify as having the purpose of generating "highly shareable content", the definition of a content farm. To this point, Russell speculates the articles are written by AI or at best lazy writing practices.
If you don't find this analysis satisfactory, I would like to drop it in WP:RSN and defer to their judgement before I feel comfortable confirming there aren't NPOV issues in the article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you re: reliability of Big 7. I do not think the Wikipedia article should cite Big 7 as a reliable source, but in this case, the article's text is about Russell's thoughts (not Big 7's). Russell is a writer for The Oregonian, which is considered a reliable source. Aren't his thoughts on the list inclusion worth mentioning? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: I have tried to address your concerns, but please let me know if any remain. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Another Believer for your excellent and prompt work in addressing these. I have a few more concerns I'll add over the next few hours when I'm free and I will complete a source sample. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will paraphrase the lengthy quote in the meantime. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave and TrademarkedTWOrantula: I've done another round of changes, if you're able to take another look. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou again for your changes being so prompt, I have added just a few more requests above. For the most part I am just waiting on seeing how the Big 7 Travel text is resolved before moving forward. In the meantime I'll complete spot check and image copyright. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave I don't feel strongly about keeping the Big 7 text. Feel free to remove if required for passing GA status. I just thought Russell's comments were relevant. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I found anther recent location update, so I've added the following text for the Bend location: "By mid 2023, the cart had relocated to Third Street, operating outside the Hosmer bar in the Waypoint Hotel. Hosmer was opened by Aldridge and his brother." ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 18 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:MidCity_SmashedBurger/GA1&oldid=1235323990"