Talk:Imperial Bottle Shop & Taproom/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 01:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Another Believer, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you find my feedback helpful. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 01:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not every article is fit to be a GA - this is a polished advertorial (not accusing the content-creator of any malafide intentions; it's the topic) and will always remain one. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about your concerns, or point out specifically problematic text? I've promoted ~50 entries about Portland restaurants to Good article status. The content of this article is similar to those. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , the article does reads a bit promotional, like the section on reception sounds like something one would hang on their establishment's wall. But I don't think anything can be done about it since it's just the nature of the coverage. Per se there is nothing preventing an article which has a lower degree of coverage from becoming a good article though I do understand why there are apprehensions over it. Anyways I've completed the review and left some comments below, there are some minor issues but otherwise it more or less meets the criteria so I'm going to go ahead and promote it. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * The separate section on description doesn't make sense, it's contents can be better integrated in the sections on history and reception. The first line seems to belong in history and the rest in reception.
 * The use of present perfect seems a bit odd for quotations in the section on description, could just use past tense as the quotations made at a specific point in time.
 * The line on George Floyd should probably mention the nature of vandalism (as that appears vague), the owners' response and specify that protesters did it.
 * "Outdoor seating had returned at both locations by September 2020." Past tense (i.e "was") makes more sense then using past perfect (i.e "had") here.
 * "The bar closed on March 19." Not sure this is verifiable from the citation, can you double check?
 * The source specifically says, "The Northeast Portland location of this beer bar closed March 19..." --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "GlüBar returned in 2021." Should probably specify that it was closed due to pandemic restrictions?
 * GlüBar was seasonal and unrelated to COVID (apart from offering outdoor seating during the pandemic). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Assessment
 Comprehension: The comprehension is good.

Verifiability: The article is verifiable.

Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.

Neutrality: The article is neutral.

Stability: The article is stable. Illustration: The article is well illustrated. 

