Talk:Tijuana Flats/GA1

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

Reviewer: JayJay (talk · contribs) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead is way too short and needs to adequately summarize the whole artictle
 * ✅ It's still pretty short, but then so is the whole article. CorporateM (Talk) 18:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please renominate the article when all the problems have been fixed  Jay Jay What did I do? 18:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is way to short and needs to be expanded, also it goes into unnecessary details like "As of 2008, the average check was $8 at lunch and $13 at dinner." I don't really need to know that and it doesn't have anything to with the restaurant really.
 * ✅ It's still short, but it's a small chain (a personal favorite of mine) and I wouldn't expect it to be possible to expand it much more. CorporateM (Talk) 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's still short, but it's a small chain (a personal favorite of mine) and I wouldn't expect it to be possible to expand it much more. CorporateM (Talk) 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The articles tone makes it seem like it is the best restaurant ever like for example "After a school shooting in Newton, Connecticut, Tijuana Flats called December 27 Teacher Hero Day and gave teachers a free entree" that's great and all but not really needed
 * Hmm... not sure there is anything I can do about that. They are active in charitable efforts and those charities are documented in secondary sources. But it is trimmed a little now. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article needs alot of work before it can be come a Good Article
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article needs alot of work before it can be come a Good Article