Talk:Cocina de Autor/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2024 (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

Nominator: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 07:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The restaurant serves creative dishes.[6] is basically incomprehensible: how can dishes be creative? Humans can be creative. If this absurdly short bit of restaurant criticism is to mean anything useful it needs unpacking a bit better; if the critic said no more than that, the commentary is useless.

Additionally, Velasco described the food as "a playful and creative reinterpretation of traditional gastronomy, with imaginative touches aimed at surprising and delighting diners".[7] -- not sure this works at all here, coming from an insider in the business. Apart from the feeling of sales talk, which we should not be repeating, the "surprise and delight" cliché is purest management-speak when they know nothing of requirements engineering but want to sound good, presumably to other managers. I'm not sure that "playful and creative reinterpretation" is any less clichéd, actually, the "Additionally" doesn't work, and "imaginative touches" just sounds like self-puffery. We'll be best off without either sentence.

the restaurant's menu is commonly replaced - I've no idea as a native English speaker what "is commonly replaced" might mean. Is it updated daily? weekly? monthly? at random intervals? Does this apply only to the main dishes? It needs to be explained plainly for the general reader.

gave it another Michelin star to the restaurant chain, - which is the recipient, the restaurant or the chain? Please explain; the sentence doesn't work as written. The usual context is that Michelin award stars only to individual restaurants, so if they've adopted a different procedure here, that needs to be stated to avoid confusing the general reader.

the restaurant opened to the general public after receiving its Michelin star. - well, this sounds absurd as stated, so there must be a story behind the claim, and that story needs to be told here, briefly, so readers can understand what is being said. Normally the Michelin staff visit the restaurant, eat there, make their judgement, and later present the star. Per the next item, perhaps the meaning is that being inside a resort, only card-carrying resort members could eat in the restaurant? If so, that's what the reader needs to know, with citation.

Reworded.

during the resort's Sensory Voyage festival. - the reader has been told that the "chain" (of exactly 2 restaurants? Not terribly chain-like) is part of Grand Velas Resorts (an uncited claim, it appears), but not that either or both restaurants are physically in any of the resorts, nor even that th.

What seems to be missing more generally is a 'Context' section which states, in terms, that the GV company runs resorts that include hotels, restaurants, and facilities for activities (swimming? gym? what else?), that the restaurants are physically inside the resorts, that there are exactly 2 resorts each with a restaurant (?), and that these are places for month-long/week-long holidays (?) or for members to drop in at weekends (?) or for an evening (?), it's all hopelessly unclear at the moment what the context is.

The statement that Michelin issued its first Mexico guide in 2024 should be in 'Context', not in one of the restaurant sections.

The statement that Riviera Maya is in Playa del Carmen, which that article (not this one) says is a "resort city" (what's that?) does not equate to saying that the restaurant is actually inside a resort, not what that actually means. I note that the infobox gives further details of dress code and accessibility to children; these facts need to be repeated (and probably fleshed out a bit: readers may have heard of 'smart casual' (or not, at least it's bluelinked) but few will have heard of 'elegant casual', which seems an oxymoron even if 'smart casual' no longer does) in the main text, most likely in the 'Context' section.

The 'Context' section would be improved with an illustration of the physical context of one of the resorts. Actually it'd be better if the map was physically in the section, but I understand the desire to use the infobox format, however inconvenient that is for the article.

I'd suggest a second paragraph in the 'Context' section which briefly explains what a Michelin star is. You could also give a bit of the background of the three cooks mentioned, since only Sidney Schutte is actually bluelinked.

Following the 'Context', I suggest that the two 'Riviera Maya' and 'Los Cabos' sections be grouped in a chapter headed 'Restaurants' for clarity, i.e. they will become sections 2.1 and 2.2.

Cocina de Autor appears to mean 'Signature Cuisine' (yeah, that needs explication too), and the article needs to offer a translation and say what it actually means, suitably cited.

Added.

Definitely better, thank you.

Images

The lead photo and the map are fine.

As mentioned, an image of the resort context (with the restaurant exterior, if it has one, or maybe it's inside a resort hotel? It's quite unclear) would be helpful.

It's a miracle to have one picture.

Sources

[1] and [2] are not independent RS but may be suitable for basic facts.

Many of the sources require a "|trans-title=" parameter with an English version of the title.

Other than "Nahum Velasco" and "Cocina de Autor", I don't see untranslated titles.

It would be helpful for many of the Spanish sources also to have a "|quote=" parameter with an English translation of the key points, selected to be as brief as possible, in those sources.

Why is [4] mbmarcobeteta.com a reliable source?

Marco Beteta is one of the earliest travel writers from the country. He is commonly cited by third-party reliable sources.

What makes [17] Yahoo a reliable source? It's be easier if Drillinger ([8], [17], [20]) was bluelinked, but she isn't.

WP:RSP doesn't mention that Yahoo is an unreliable source or even a questionable one. Drillinger herself has written for multiple food and travel websites as well.[1]

The Sydney Morning Herald page appears as it flashes past to verify the text cited at [15] but it is subscriber-only, the appropriate parameter should be added.

Added.

All the other sources check out.

Summary

At the moment, this article needs a bit of work, both in terms of a 'Context' section and in terms of the intelligibility of the main text.

I think I have fulfilled the previous comments, except for the |quote translations because sometimes it is superfluous and a repetition of what's already written (like Milenio, Poligrafías or Robb Report México). The only source that could require it is El Universal, but it is used in multiple places with multiple cited quotes. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. I think the article is far more approachable now with the added context. I hope you found the review helpful and are pleased with the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 4 November 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.