Talk:St. Lawrence (restaurant)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PinkElixir (talk · contribs) 01:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am planning to review this article and will do so in the coming days. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

PinkElixir, are you still planning to review this? I see you haven't edited since July 9th and prior to that you weren't incredibly active. I may request that someone else take over this review if you don't respond. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos: thank you for checking in. I would like to review this article. Life got the best of me over the past weeks, but I try to be regularly active on the project and would appreciate the chance to get more involved this way. Thanks.PinkElixir (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2021 (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.	The prose is clear and concise. There are no glaring spelling or grammar errors. Writing is easy to understand for a general audience.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section captures a summary of the article. There are no issues with "words to watch." Headings and sections are appropriately ordered and titled.
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.	Information is properly sourced. The references follow MOS:REFERENCES.
	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).	All content is appropriately sourced using appropriate WP:RS.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no WP:OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no signs of WP:PLAG or WP:CV. There are some quotations, but sources are appropriately referenced in such instances.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article focuses on relevant main aspects of the topic, including the restaurant's history, design, cuisine, and reception.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article does not delve into superfluous detail about the restaurant.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article follows NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no history of edit warring or content dispute on the article.
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 appropriately used. All images are either an editor's own work or part of the Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images used and captions given are relevant to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	Y - article passes GA criteria