Talk:Quintonil

Latest comment: 5 hours ago by TrademarkedTWOrantula in topic GA Review

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 04:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • ... that Pujol and Quintonil restaurants tied with two Michelin stars, the highest ratings in Mexico's first guide?
  • Source: [1] On Tuesday, the Michelin Guide announced its first-ever rankings for the country, with two two-star restaurants and 16 one-star spots.
5x expanded by Tbhotch (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 47 past nominations.

(CC) Tbhotch 04:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC). Both articles:Reply


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Nice work. This looks good to go. Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius: Hi! Thanks for reviewing it. I noticed that I could also expand List of Michelin starred restaurants in Mexico. Can I add it to this nomination as follows?

Here is the QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Taste of Summer. (CC) Tbhotch 19:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

List of Michelin starred restaurants in Mexico:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.
Overall:   The List of Michelin starred restaurants in Mexico article is new enough, long enough, sourced, and has no issues with neutrality or plagiarism. As with my review above, the nomination is good to go with 3 bolded links. Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Quintonil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply


Snatch! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 15:47, 1 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. Reference section is available.
  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. According to Earwig, the top result is at a 24.8% similarity. While not alarming, a considerable amount of text from the article is quoted. It can be easily paraphrased.
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. Article is stable.
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.

Quickfail?

edit
  •  Y Article is stable.
  •  Y Earwig top result: 24.8%. No severe copyright violations.
  •  Y No mistakes in previous GA reviews to note.
  •  Y No cleanup banners or citation needed tags.
  •  Y No glaring errors.