Talk:The Restaurant Marco Pierre White/GA1

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

Reviewer: Spike789 (talk · contribs) 22:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Article will be finished with reviewing in about 7 days.  Spike789     😎   22:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

2nd Opinion
Article sounds pretty good to me, but I'm not that sure. Sounds more like a story than an encyclopedia article. I may need a 2nd opinion.  Spike789     😎   00:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a very brief look at the article, and from a cursory view there doesn't seem much wrong with it; to be honest, anyone citing The Times subscription archive is a bit of a shibboleth and gives me the impression that they know their stuff. I'm sure you can come up with wording suggestions, or pull up facts or insights in the news sources that aren't in the article, but it's certainly worth a full review. Don't just rubber-stamp it as passed though, I'm sure the nominator will welcome any suggestions you have to make the article even better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Spike789, are you still interested in pursuing this review and checking it against all of the GA criteria? It isn't merely that the article reads well; checks need to be made to be sure the article properly reflects the information in its sources yet doesn't copy them, that the prose is clear and concise throughout, the images are properly licensed, and so on. This review has been sitting for nearly six weeks since a second opinion was given. If you aren't still interested, we can put it back into the pool of nominations awaiting a full review with no loss of seniority. Please let us know. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try and review it against, and maybe I will reconsider it, and make it a GA.  Spike789    🇺🇸   22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed
I made it a good article. After re-reading the article, I decided that this article was well written and should be a GA.  Spike789    🇺🇸   22:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Spike789, there are very specific criteria, as I mentioned above; it isn't just deciding that an article is well written or not. I would have been much happier if you had confirmed that the various specified GA criteria had all been met, but you didn't do that, and as you are a new reviewer, it gives us pause. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)