Talk:Gage and Tollner

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Lightburst in topic Did you know nomination

Was this joint good?

edit

Man, I be eatin at old restauarants all the time! And I keep notes on if they food is good. This restaurant be really old and I want to know if the food is good. I cain't put nothin in the wiki cause i aint eat therre, but if some one has been they can put it on they blog and we can link to it good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talkcontribs) 04:39, 4 May 2011

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk14:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

 
Gage and Tollner

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 22:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Gage and Tollner; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

GA Review

edit

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Gage and Tollner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 17:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


Lead

edit
  •   The lead summarizes all of the main points in the article. It is three paragraphs long and the article is 6490 words. All of the information in the lead is covered in the article. Bruxton (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Infobox

edit

Images

edit

Early years

edit
  •   This is a great section with much information including the price of a meal in 1900. Women were banned from smoking is an interesting pre-suffrage tidbit.
  • Consider adding information about this: One of the restaurant's co-owners, Marcus J. Ingalls, died there in February 1911 so that the reader's curiosity is satisfied. Like how he died? or? Bruxton (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Done pinging @Epicgenius: to the nomination before final checks. Might be one item above this post that needs attention.

Ownership and use

edit
  •   The references check out. The sections are detailed and accurate. The sources are all reliable. Great detail and I like the part about the milk crate discovery.

Cuisine and clientele

edit

References

edit
  •   The article has 232 references. Earwig only alerts to properly attributed quotes. The sources are high quality. I have spot checked many of the references and found that the nominator has been thorough and has properly interpreted the sources without WP:CLOP. Bruxton (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Review Chart

edit
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. Yes
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes
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. Yes
  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). Yes
  2c. it contains no original research. Yes
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Yes
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. Yes
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Yes
  7. Overall assessment. Pending
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.