Talk:Spella Caffè/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gerald Waldo Luis (talk · contribs) 08:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm gonna review this in a shortt while. Really nice to see you in the GAN backlog again! I have another GAN I'm reviewing and am quite busy IRL so I chose this as it's the shortest, hope that's okay. GeraldWL 08:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis Thanks for reviewing! I have tried to address your concerns below, if you're able to take another look. I've left the images alone and I would prefer to keep mention of the Art Deco logo design within the article body. I agree, some better/different images would be better and I have this on my "to do" list, but I hope they are good enough for GA status in the meantime. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Images and refs and those stuff

• The logo is kinda just a generic text not within the threshold of originality, so a higher quality ver of it can be uploaded to Commons with maybe a trademark notice if appropriate.
  • I do not upload logos to Wikimedia Commons, but perhaps someone else will copy the file (or upload a higher quality version) to Commons at a later date. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I've uploaded one myself. GeraldWL 03:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

      Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• The other pics look okay and freely licensed, although the infobox exterior image, if you have the chance to revisit, I think a front wide shot would be more neat, like y'know, Wes Anderson symmetry. But it's not a GA concern.
• The third image closing up to the logo feels repetitive, since the second photo already prominently features the logo. You can just make an infobox logo caption stating something like "Logo, featuring an Art Deco design" with the supporting ref. You can then remove the second paragraph in Description, which I think is in an awkward position.
• Alternatively, if you can get in the cafe, an interior picture in 4:3 aspect ratio would be a nice alternative to the close up pic.
  • I have this on my 'to do' list. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• What do you think about putting mdy template to generate such date format for the refs?
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• The infobox has an Owner parameter, does Andrea Spella still own the caffe?
  • Yes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Some of the ref's websites/pubs are linked, but some are not.
  • Fixed (first appearances should be linked now). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Prose

• I think the lead can be expanded a bit, there's certainly more to the article than just its opening.
  • I added that the business has garnered a positive reception and has been cited as an influence for others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• They started the business as a cart?
  • Linked "cart" to Food cart. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• "The business has an Art Deco logo." -- I would rephrase it a bit, the section is the only place where this sentence is appropriate but it still feels awkward. Maybe something like "The cafe also features a logo styled in Art Deco."
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Link to espresso would be nice
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• "town --hand-pulled" could fix the dash here.
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• There's frequent mentions of "Andrea Spella", to my knowledge, following the first mention its preferable to just refer by surname.
  • I agree, but in this case sometimes I need to disambiguate Spella the person from Spella the business. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Combination request: paragraph 1&2, 3&4&5
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• A link to amp would be nice
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• "In 2022, Spella"-- "Shortly after, Spella" to avoid repetition from prev sentence
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• " 2,750-square-foot" adding convert to sq meter would be nice
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• In last para: link dark roast, bourbon coffee, stout
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Writers said" is kinda ambiguous. "Other writers of the newspaper" sounds better.
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Link Caffè crema and Rome
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• The last quote in paragraph can totally be paraphrased. My efforts are: "and recommends it "for a quick espresso (sipped standing, of course) or an early afternoon affogato, where hot espresso is poured over a scoop of gelato", but recommended workers taking their drinks out, noting the "barely enough room to wait"."
  • Updated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• "In Best Places: Portland (2010)" --> "In the book Best Places: Portland (2010)"
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• "focused on its Rancilio lever espresso machine"-- pretty sure the point of the quote won't change by removing this part.
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• "This one’s for the grownups. For grownups who" --> "This one’s for the grownups [...] who"
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• For last sentence: "Eater Portland called Spella "a proud homage to Italian coffee making"."
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Overall

I did some last changes, and after putting the article against the GAC, I think it looks all good, it's clear and neat, and I don't notice any more problems. Good job once again! Promoting~ GeraldWL 10:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.