Jump to content

Talk:Westman's Bagel & Coffee/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.


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

Nominator: Another Believer (talk · contribs) 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 14:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Bagels and coffee?? TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 14:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only gonna do initial comments for this review. I will be back in a couple of hours. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 14:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if the review seems to be delayed. I have schoolwork I need to catch up on (as is for everyone). TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all! There's no rush here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I have finished your review. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TrademarkedTWOrantula I think I've addressed your concerns, but please let me know if any issues remain. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:38, 3 May 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. Prose is clean. No typos spotted.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. No words spotted on WTW list. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply.
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. Reference section attributes sources. No bare URLs spotted.
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). Most sources are reliable, and they are cited. Article is well-referenced.
2c. it contains no original research. Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. A considerable amount of text is copied from one article. Quotes could be cut down or shortened. This has been fixed, so this criterion shall pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Article contains information about the shop's interior (and exterior), its menu, its history, and its reception.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article stays focused.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article stays neutral.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article has only one contributor, so no edit wars have occurred. Development is at a steady pace.
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. Logo is tagged with copyright status and non-free use rationale. All other images are tagged with the CC 4.0 SA license.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Logo and building images are relevant. Captions are suitable.
7. Overall assessment. Bagel bagel bagel bagel...

Copyright violations[edit]

Images[edit]

  • I'm not sure why there are three different images of the same location. Couldn't the third image (in the reception section) suffice?

Lead[edit]

Description[edit]

History[edit]

Reception[edit]

Spotchecking[edit]

Five sources. This revision.

  • #8 Green tickY
  • #12 Green tickY
  • #22 Green tickY
  • #26 Green tickY
  • #31 Green tickY
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.