Talk:Ruby Tuesday (restaurant)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Deathlasersonline (talk · contribs) 15:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well-written
(a)Yes, it is quite clear.✅ (b)Lead under developed, Etymology section also under developed.

I went ahead and skimmed the article, and honestly I think the structure is on the poor side. many paragraphs start with "On (date, year)" or something similar, and while it's okay once in a while, it's too frequent here. As the reviewer noted, the lead should be two nice paragraphs rather than what it is now. Plus, I'm not sure if the CEO departure warrants being in the lead or not; if it does, then it shouldn't be its own paragraph. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Etymology section could be extended. In this section, you say: "which was popular during the time of the first restaurant's inception." Why was it popular? Do you have any citations or data to prove this as "popular" is a peacock term. In the Menu section, you say: "Ruby Tuesday offers an array of American cuisine in its eponymous restaurants. They offer a broad selection of choices." This may sound like advertising, so it could be toned down slightly. In the Headquarters section, you say "the area is currently used to dine and house management during corporate training sessions." The word "currently" will become outdated, so you may want to remove that word or provide a citation for what it may be used for in the future if it is likely to be changed. These are just a few suggestions.  Puffin  Let's talk! 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. I am working to significantly expand the lead/etymology section, improve the structure, and address the other issues. Chilled616 (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable
Mostly, but "Ruby Tuesday CEO Sandy Beall touched on the transformation in his letter to stakeholders in the company's 2007 Annual Report: Elevating Ruby Tuesday above the crowd to a memorable, high-quality dining experience is critical to our growth and success. We are engaged in a three-year plan to reposition, reinvent and reinvigorate the Ruby Tuesday brand. We began by bringing our guests fresh, exciting new menu choices, then raised our standards of service, and are now creating an innovative new look and style for each and every restaurant. This revitalization will appeal to our loyal core guests while attracting a new generation of consumers." Is not using in-line cititations. Thus: (a)✅ (b) (c)✅
 * I understand that inline citations are typically expected, but wouldn't a link and direct quote from a specified report be sufficient as verifiable? I could just as easily cite the report, but I felt it would be redundant. Chilled616 (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Broad in coverage
(a)✅, but a few under-developed sections (b)✅
 * Is "a few under-developed sections" referring to the areas described above or is there other parts of the article I should address? Chilled616 (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral
✅

Stable
✅

Illustrated by images
(a)✅ (b)✅


 * Comment The GA review was started by an editor who has since been blocked for one year for competence issues. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * GA1 Review has been ended; nomination is back in the pool and ready to be selected for a GA2 review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)