Talk:Metrovino/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

Nominator: Another Believer (talk · contribs) 19:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 23:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm back, baby! Quick note: Although I was planned to be a co-nominator, I never had the time to do it, so I am permitted to review this article for GA status. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks for reviewing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, we've worked well together before, so if there are instances in which making article changes yourself is easier/quicker than asking me here and then revising again later, I have no problem with you making the changes yourself. Happy to address any concerns you may have and looking forward to collaborating! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:03, 2 November 2024 (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.	Article reads well. Spotted no typos; readable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is of adequate length. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not bombarded with words from the WTW list. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yep.
	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).	Reliable sources, including Eater, Thrillist, The Oregonian, and local news stations, have been used.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	According to the Earwig report, a considerable amount of text is pasted verbatim from sources (e.g. this source). Quotes will need to be shortened for the article to meet this criterion. Issue has been fixed; the highest ranked similarity is at 12.3%. I trimmed the Thrillist quote. I don't any of the other quotes are particularly long but let me know if any stand out as problematic. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article contains detailed information about the restaurant's menu, history, and reception.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral; it does not try to praise the restaurant.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable. No recent edit wars spotted.
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.	Both images in the article are tagged with their respective copyright status. A valid fair use rationale has been provided for the logo.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images are relevant and add information to the article. The caption for the exterior is very helpful!
	7. Overall assessment.	Yum yum!

Description

• Would recommend that the citation that supports the word "upscale" should be moved to the end of the sentence.
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• temperature-controlled cabinet system - Is that a thing you use to store your wine?
  • Yes ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Something about the menu section tells me it needs better organization... the grammar isn't a problem, though. I think we should list the appetizers first, then the entrees, deserts, and finally the drinks. (If you think the section is fine as is, you don't have to change anything.)
  • I like how the section is currently written and I'd prefer not to assume which were appetizers vs. entrees, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

History

• his mother - Name? (if found)
  • Not known ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Tried shortening the quote; not sure if that helps.
  • Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• As of January 2013 - Replace "as of" with "in", since the restaurant is defunct.
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Again, I've tried to paraphrase the quote. Let me know if there I have made any mistakes.
  • Thanks! ~---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Wouldn't recommend saying "reportedly"; it's a weasel word.
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Metrovino celebrated a fourth anniversary in May. - Does that infer that the restaurant opened in May 2009?
  • Yes, but I would prefer not to assume the opening month unless a source explicitly says, since it is possible the anniversary celebration was held outside the actual opening date. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Covering the "off-the-menu specials" made available by local restaurants in conjunction with Feast Portland in 2012 - Not really sure what this is supposed to mean here?
• Covering the "off-the-menu specials" made available by local restaurants in conjunction with Feast Portland in 2012, which included the "bone luge", Eater Portland called Metrovino the "most Portland-y Pearl District spot". - On second thought, this should go in the reception section (considering the second part of the sentence is praising the restaurant)
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Would like the title of Grier's cookbook if found
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• The winning food was served at Metrovino for one weekend only in September. - Was it the same weekend where they served the porchetta?
  • Nope! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Did some copyediting myself.
  • Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• Think I may have cut out a bit too much... oh well
  • @TrademarkedTWOrantula: Thanks so much! I think (and hope!) I've addressed your concerns. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, I hope to take a better photograph of the building at some point. I've also nominated Sissy Bar (Portland, Oregon) if you happen to be interested in reviewing a similar article. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like everything's up to code. Passing... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 20:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecking

• Gonna check three. (Revision)
  • #6: Y
  • #27: Y
  • #39: Y

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.