Talk:Tin Shed Garden Cafe/GA2

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

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 06:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. Plain and simple. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 06:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quickfail?[edit]

  • No serious copyright violations are present, although I saw a considerable amount of text duplicated from a documentary (according to Earwig).
  • I don't see any cleanup banners or citation needed tags.
  • This article is stable.
  • The previous review failed this article due to it having incomplete information. However, that has changed; the article at this point in time has 877 words. There are reviews, and most sources point to The Oregonian, a reliable source.

Chart[edit]

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. Text flows nicely. Spotted no typos.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section is long enough for an article containing about 900 words. Per MOS:LAYOUT, everything is in the right place. Little words found in the article were on the WTW list.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Citations are consistently formatted.
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). Statements, direct quotations, and material that is likely to be challenged are cited with reliable sources.
2c. it contains no original research. Spotchecking proves that there is text-source integrity. No original research has been spotted.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Some quotes could be paraphrased, but there isn't anything too bad regarding plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Tin Shed's menu, history, and reception are included, proving that this article has adequate information.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article does not go off topic.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article is NPOV.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars spotted in article's history.
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. Pass, although I feel that the non-free criteria for the logo is a little incomplete.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The logo, exterior, and interior images sufficiently show what the restaurant looks like.
7. Overall assessment. It's Breakfast Time! (pass)

Lead + important issues[edit]

  • Not sure why you mention that the restaurant is in the United States. I feel as though it is common knowledge that Oregon is one of the 50 states of America. (I may be wrong, though.)
  • I think it's unnecessary to have two exterior photos; they were both taken in the same year. You could delete the second image, which is the one outside of the infobox.
    I found an image of the interior of Flickr, which I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and added to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead could be expanded a bit.
  • or simply, → shortened as,

Description[edit]

  • Unlink "King"
    • We should link this location the first time it appears in the article body. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "dog friendly"; you explain that the restaurant has a menu for dogs (it kind of sounds promotional if you keep it in)
  • Fast Company statement should be part of the reception section; doesn't really fit here
  • Same thing for The New York Times statement
    • I'd prefer to keep this in the Description section because it describes the clientele and confirms the presence of a patio. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Menu[edit]

  • Among the dog-themed scrambles are the Fetch with eggs and bacon, and the Stay, which has greens, mushrooms, and roasted sweet potatoes. You could move this sentence to the second paragraph.
    • I'd prefer to keep the first paragraph about food for people and the second paragraph about food for dogs. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link ice cream

History[edit]

  • Is the number of employees in 2005 important?
    • I think it is important to give a sense of the size of the business. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph could be moved above second one
  • helped transform a stretch of street, which at one point was known for having the highest number of drive-by shootings in the city, into one of the city's hippest neighborhoods → paraphrase to something like "cooperated by reducing the number of shootings within the area"
  • Why did Portland ban the use of public sidewalks for storing trash? I'm not a native Portlander, soooooo..... explain please =)
    • I'm not sure there's more to say here. The city doesn't want businesses leaving trash bins on public sidewalks. Some businesses have requested exemptions. If you think more needs to be said here, I'd appreciate a text suggestion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

  • Quotes could use some paraphrasing. I'll give you some ideas, but it's up to you to change them.
  • more of a throwback to a time when offbeat, multi-ethnic flavors began to creep into our breakfast foods → as a "throwback" to when "multi-ethnic flavors" combined with the American breakfast
  • Wait... shouldn't reception sections be organized by topic? I see you sorted information by newspaper.
    • For Reception section in restaurant articles, I generally tend to lead with the strongest sources (newspapers of record, magazines), then local newspapers, then food review websites and other media outlets. This also takes chronology into account. Editors might tinker with the wording over time, but hopefully you feel it's appropriate enough for GA status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2006, Willamette Week readers ranked the café first in the Best Brunch category of the annual "Best of Portland" readers' poll. → In 2006, Willamette Week readers voted in the annual "Best of Portland" poll. The café ended up ranking first in the Best Brunch category.
  • Why is city guide quoted?
  • Link second author in current reference 47 (the one with Jackson-Glidden)?
  • Why is stack quoted?
  • Is there no criticism?
    • I would include negative critiques if I found any. I would also welcome additions by other editors over time, if negative coverage is identified. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually I'm skeptical about these kinds of Internet lists, even the ones from Yelp, which at least has its terabytes of freely entered user data to draw from. But in this case, I think they nailed it. → Usually I'm skeptical [...] Yelp [...] has [...] freely entered user data to draw from. But in this case, I think they nailed it.
      • I've trimmed the quote in a slightly different way than you've suggestion, but hopefully appropriately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or you could try: The Oregonian's Michael Russell doubted that Tin Shed's list placement was based upon "terabytes of freely entered user data", but agreed that its rank was justified.

Spotchecking[edit]

  • I'm going to select nine references at random.
  • Green tickY #8 and a menu for dogs
  • #10 and Green tickY #11 Tin Shed hosts Doggie Love Night on Tuesdays, as of 2018. - #10 (Eater Portland) doesn't directly mention Tin Shed's Doggie Love Night. #11 (Best Dog Hikes Oregon) should cite that the information can be found on page 26.
  • Green tickY #18 cheese grits
  • Green tickY #19 (omelettes) - It does mention omelettes, but it's unclear whether or not the news article is referring to Tin Shed.
  • Green tickY #25 Co-owners Christie Griffin and Janette Kaden opened Tin Shed in 2002. - Date and co-owners verified by #24, but only Christie Griffin is verified as a co-owner by #25
  • Green tickY #33 In the show, Breakfast in Bridgetown author Paul Gerald describes how Tin Shed and the restaurant Helser's "helped transform a stretch of street, which at one point was known for having the highest number of drive-by shootings in the city, into one of the city's hippest neighborhoods", according to The Oregonian. - This reference merely identifies that Tin Shed was on a documentary. It should be moved somewhere else. I forgot to check reference #32; I stand corrected. The quote actually is there. Also, this reference's article was created in 2010, yet the Wikipedia article says that Breakfast Special was made in 2020. Was it delayed? That was in fact a typo. I have corrected it.
  • Green tickY #34 Chef Nathan Lyon has also visited the restaurant for an episode of Good Food America. - Also, you can mention that Lyon featured Tin Shed on the second episode of Good Food America.
  • Green tickY #38 In 2006, Willamette Week readers ranked the café first in the Best Brunch category of the annual "Best of Portland" readers' poll.

Some burning questions from a newbie editor[edit]

  • What makes Autostraddle, The Oregonian, Thrillist, and Willamette Week reliable sources?
    • The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. The alternative weekly Willamette Week has been published since 1974 and has been used extensively on Wikipedia. I'm less familiar with Autostraddle, but the publication appears to be well-respected and around since 2009. I wouldn't necessarily rely on Thrillist to verify contentious or controversial claims, but the site is part of the Vox Media network, along with many other sites like The Verge, Vox, SB Nation, Eater, and Polygon. All of these are appropriate for Wikipedia, and none of them are flagged as problematic at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you make the portal rectangle thing at the "see also" section?
    • Not sure I understand your question. These are common on Wikipedia, and this particular one is based on the markup "{{Portal|Food|Oregon}}". ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the code for the collapsible boxes at the bottom of the article?

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: I hope I've addressed your concerns. I assume editors will continue to collaborate and improve this entry over time, but hopefully you feel the entry meets GA criteria at this time. Thanks for reviewing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Done! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrademarkedTWOrantula: I replied re: Ref 33. Please clarify if you mean you are finished reviewing, or this review is complete and the article has passed. Happy to address any remaining concerns if you have any. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article's concerns are addressed. Now passing... TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:19, 16 December 2023 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tin_Shed_Garden_Cafe/GA2&oldid=1190146213"