Talk:Rosetta (restaurant)/GA1

GA Review

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) 02:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: That Tired Tarantula (talk · contribs) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article during the next few days. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

First look

Criteria

• No maintenance templates: Y
• Relavent images are present: Y
• No recent edit wars: Y

Copyright

• No copyright violations/plagiarism: Y
• Images are free (unless a rationale is given if they are not) and tagged: Y

Prose

Broadness and focus

The article stays focused and has all the sections that an article about a restaurant should have and there is no significant information omitted. Looks good.

Writing and MoS

The article is very well-written and follows MoS guidelines.

There's one little spot that I noticed at the start of the second paragraph of the reception section:

• "Miguel Rivera recommended for the magazine Chilango bread and pasta because of their cooking style; a reviewer from Bon Appétit shared the opinion and approved the pasta."

The first part of this sentence is a bit wordy, so could it be changed to something like, "For the magazine Chilango, Miguel Rivera..." and then the rest of the prose could be kept the same?

• Reworded

Neutrality

At first, I was a bit conerned about due weight, since there are only positive reviews presented in the article, but after looking onine, there doesn't seem to be any mixed or negative reviews from reliable sources. There's a couple words to watch, but they help out with explaining things and making the writing in the article flow; assumptions aren't made.

References

Evaluating sources

All of the sources are reliable, secondary, and independent.

Citation accuracy

1. The restaurant having reservations is kind of an indirect assumption, but it's a reasonable one; I'm not concerned about it.

2 and 3. Where do the sources mention the restaurant being a la carte?

I changed them with a more explicit source

6 and 7. Same as with the first reference, the cities or states that the towns and areas are located is inferred, but it's logical, so it's fine.

7. The source mentions how the dough has been fermenting for nine years, but doesn't mention when the restaurant was first made.

Reworded. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

21. The Michelin guide doesn't mention how it is the first year for restaurants in Mexico to be rewarded Michelin stars.

Sourced.

Everything else looks good.

Overall

Everything meets the GA criteria. Excellent article; great work!