Talk:Park Grill/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Nascar 1996  22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose looks good while th MoS is not.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The current references are realiable. I am staying neutral for the no original research.  Nascar 1996  22:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * On the major aspects I reccomend someone eslse to check that while the article is very focused on the main idea.  Nascar 1996  23:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * This I will need a second opinion on.  Nascar 1996  23:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Looks good here. 23:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The image does not have the fair use rationale on it, but the captions (there are none) are good.  Nascar 1996  22:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * free image added Hugh (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am failing the article, it looks okay but needs to under go some tasks.

To fix the article add fair use to the image, and rewrite the sentences better. The sentences are a little choppy and some are fragments. -- Nascar 1996  23:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * can you pls point out an example of a sentence fragment? thanks Hugh (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Of short understanding I am adding the article back to a nominee. -- Nascar 1996  23:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Second review
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am taking over this review as the original reviewer has abandoned. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The Lead is too short. It should "succinctly summarise" the whole article, please see WP:LEAD for guidelines.
 * lead expanded to summarize whole article as per WP:LEAD Hugh (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Location and views: Bordering Millennium Park along Chicago's Michigan Avenue, the famous Chicago sculpture Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza is located on the roof of Park Grill. This implies that the sculpture is bordering the park and avenue.
 * sentence broken up and clarified to remove implication Hugh (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole section is written like an advertisement. Please see NOTADVERTISING for guidelines
 * I have reviewed this section, the policy and the RS. Individual statements do read like an ad, however it is too strong to say the "whole section" reads like an ad (e.g. "...location trumps service...", "...waitstaff lapses...", "...ignore the scandal..."). The subject is notable for its location and views. This section is a fair and unbiased summary of comments in RS re: its location and views. The weight given the location and views is roughly proportional to the weight in RS as per WP:DUE. Hugh (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Film location: The Lake House (film), starring Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, filmed scenes from the Park Grill (called Il Mare in the movie) in which Bullock's character (Kate) watches skaters from the windows of the restaurant. This is WP:TRIVIA
 * section deleted Hugh (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * History: In 2003 the Chicago Park District awarded a 20-year contract to run the Park Grill. To whom?
 * to whom? clarified from 2 RS Hugh (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole section is very messy and WP:SUMMARY style should be used here. The various court case are notable but appear to be the only things that are in the artcile. there is little here about the restuarant.
 * thanks for the review. I plan to work on the issues you raise. "there is little here about the restuarant." I understand this is perhaps not a very typical restaurant article, but this restaurant is more notable for its history than its food, and it is a very unusual history. is not the history of a subject appropriate content for an article? thanks again, Hugh (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The various court case are notable but appear to be the only things that are in the artcile." One notable (1) court case and its appeal are mentioned in the article. Other non-legal notable aspects of the restaurant included in the article are its location, the views, the menu, the head chef, a formal ethics investigation, the reaction of the Daley administration, the press coverage, and the relationship of the project manager to the contractor. Hugh (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "WP:SUMMARY style should be used here" This article is not a good candidate for splitting. WP:SUMMARY warns "Avoiding unnecessary splits: Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." WP:AVOIDSPLIT The history of the contract award process is the single most notable thing about the subject as determined by the vast preponderance of WP:RS. Further, the size of this article is well below the thresholds in WP:SPLIT. Further, WP:SUMMARY advizes against POV forking, such as might result from segregating a history of a restaurant, that might be perceived by some as reflecting unfavorably on that restaurant, from a favorable discussion of that restaurant's menu or views. Hugh (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I fixed and one and tagged two dead links.
 * Other references appear reliable and support statemnets.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The artuicle is rather unbalanced and focusses mainly on various legal problems. It is not a good article at present.
 * Lead and coverage adjusted. The coverage is broad, including location, views, menu, and history. The balance of the weight of the coverage is roughly proportional to the coverage in WP:RS as per WP:DUE. Hugh (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "focusses mainly on various legal problems" One notable (1) court case and its appeal are mentioned in the article. Other non-legal notable aspects of the restaurant included in the article are its location, the views, the menu, the head chef, a formal ethics investigation, the reaction of the Daley administration, the press coverage, and the relationship of the project manager to the contractor. WP:DUE: "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." Hugh (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * It would probably be better to put this image on Wikipedia, rather than Commons and license it as a logo.
 * free image added Hugh (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I really do not think that this artcile approaches meeting the good article criteria at present. I suggest that you have a serious rethink about what you are trying to achieve here. At present it represents a stub with some well sourced contentious material tacked on. I will not list this at this time. If you disagree wiuth this decision, please take it to WP:GAR. If you rewrite the article in accordance with the good article criteria, please re-nominate at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I really do not think that this artcile approaches meeting the good article criteria at present. I suggest that you have a serious rethink about what you are trying to achieve here. At present it represents a stub with some well sourced contentious material tacked on. I will not list this at this time. If you disagree wiuth this decision, please take it to WP:GAR. If you rewrite the article in accordance with the good article criteria, please re-nominate at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)