Talk:Holy Trinity Barbecue/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Just a few comments, and then it's on its way to GA. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk Thanks for reviewing! I've made these changes (did some paraphrasing/trimming, removed an image, fixed the "false" quote, not sure what happened there...) Please let me know if more is needed here. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear and free of typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No fiction, words to watch, lists- lead is good.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations are put in a proper "References" section
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citations are to news sites or local magazines; though a number lack an article or confirmation on WP:RS/P, none looking particularly suspicious.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotcheck (citations chosen at random): Ref 2 (Vaughn 2019): good Ref 5 (Thrillist): good Ref 12 (Fodor's Travel 2020): good Ref 18 (Gallagher 2019): good Ref 19 (Food & Wine): good Ref 28 (The Oregonian): good Ref 32 (Bjorke 2021): quote not stated in source good One comes up false. All good now, no OR visible
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	In my opinion, this article is a bit too quote heavy. Some large quotes could definitely be paraphrased, like the blockquote under "Description" and some of the "History" section. Earwig shows no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the history and reception, as well as a description of the venue.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are properly CC/non free tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	One of the images should be moved to "History", so that the reflist isn't compacted. Otherwise, images are relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.