Talk:5-8 Club/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am reviewing this article for Good Article status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * The article-subject is placed well within the local Minnesota/Upper-Midwestern culture.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Was unable to find any WP:MOS issues.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * No problems found.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool and couldn't find any.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * I especially like the focus of this article. It's a small subject - a little place that serves a local specialty-food - and I find it refreshing that it gets its due alongside world events.  Daily life is made up of these small things, it is a good thing for Wikipedia to remember them and for them to get their due.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Placed the restaurant within the local history but also pretty much stayed with the Juicy Lucys & Saucy Sallys.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Differing from most other articles of this type (laying claim to being the originator of a specialty-food) this article even mentions that there is another claimant - Matt's Bar - to the "Juicy Lucy/Jucy Lucy" throne.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * None that I have seen.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Nice job with the images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fascinating food/culture/"common man" history/pop-culture subject given its due in this concise article. I especially liked the bits about how the location started as a speakeasy during Prohibition (the underground garage so the then-owners could deal with their illicit booze).  In my opinion, this is a little article that is very good in its own way.  Others may differ and will probably think of additional improvements in the future, I am unable to do so at this time.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fascinating food/culture/"common man" history/pop-culture subject given its due in this concise article. I especially liked the bits about how the location started as a speakeasy during Prohibition (the underground garage so the then-owners could deal with their illicit booze).  In my opinion, this is a little article that is very good in its own way.  Others may differ and will probably think of additional improvements in the future, I am unable to do so at this time.