Would the sentence be grammatically correct without it? "Zapiekanka" is not a proper noun, so I'd think an article is necessary. — Kpalion(talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence indicates WP:OR; remove this sentence altogether please
Inline citation added. I admit it's not a great source, but, per WP:USERG, "a lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim". — Kpalion(talk) 22:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put quotation marks around "soggy" and "tasteless" as they still sound like opinions Carbrera (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the beginning of this section as a whole, there are very few sources to back up what is being said; I'm sure you could find a few to put in here to make your statements credible
All of the information provided in the first part of this paragraph is backed by Chwalba and TVP Info. I don't think it's necessary to repeat the same citation after every sentence. — Kpalion(talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the source; I see what you mean. Carbrera (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence could be condensed while still providing the same overall message
It reads well to me as it is. Do you have a specific suggestion for rewirting it? — Kpalion(talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's fine after reading it again. Carbrera (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence again sounds a bit bias; rephrase please
Again, do you have a specific suggestion on how to rephrase it? I can't tell which way this is biased. — Kpalion(talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know demand fell for the food? How do you know it remained on the menu? Rephrasing isn't necessary if a source is provided for these statements. Carbrera (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 'cult following' sentence needs a source to back up such a heavy statement
I'll try to add a source for this. — Kpalion(talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 'nightlife' hub' sentence needs a source as well
I'll try to add a source for this. — Kpalion(talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to why there are two separate sections for the exact same thing; the 'Sources' section needs to be combined with this for a better flow
This article uses shortened footnotes, which requires separate sections for footnotes and full citations. — Kpalion(talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an available template to add to this page? The ending looks rather bland
I don't think the use of end-of-page templates is a GA requirement. — Kpalion(talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not, but a majority of food-related articles have a template. I was just asking if you knew of one to place in this article. Carbrera (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A very decent article, but some improvements need to be made before passing GA. I'm gonna place this article on hold until the nominator has a chance to look through my comments. I hope I wasn't too strict in this review; I just want the article to be at its best before passing. Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review this article, Carbrera. I've made most of the stylistic corrections that you suggested. I will need a little more time to add citations where they are missing. Please see my replies to your individual comments above. — Kpalion(talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, just let me know when you find and add any additional citations. Carbrera (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kpalion: Notice: You have one day left to make any additional changes to the article before I review it again. Carbrera (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]