Talk:Lundy's Restaurant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lundy's Restaurant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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 SL93 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 17:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

  • Starting review
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg valereee (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I like ALT2 a lot, but I think it needs the context of a year. I looked at the source, it's saying "for about $5 in the post-war years." Can we possibly pin that down? --valereee (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT0 cited, but there are multiple estimates provided and sourced in the article. Not sure how to decide which number to use in this kind of case. --valereee (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1 partially cited. It doesn't mention the month in which Lundy said he'd shutter permanently, which we need in order to say that when it reopened in December it was just a few months later. --valereee (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering about a hook around the lobster bib, which was apparently invented by Lundy? To me that seems like it might be more interesting to a general audience than the three current ALTs. --valereee (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Valereee: thanks for starting the review. I added exact month in regards to ALT1, and when the $5 meal was offered in regards to ALT2. Could you check ALT3? epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Epicgenius, ALT2 now fully cited in the article, but we'll need to fit that context into the hook. I'm also wondering if we should either just take the 'cocktail' out or specify 'crab cocktail' or 'oyster cocktail', since cocktail alone is generally a drink. I don't think we'd need to say 'crab or oyster cocktail' like the source says, as it's clearly the diner's choice of the two. They could have that, which is what the alt says.
ALT1 approved.
ALT3...I was thinking the fact the restaurant owner invented them was the interesting part? Am I perceiving lobster bibs as more iconic than they are and their invention more interesting? To me that detail is literally the most interesting thing in the article. Yoninah do you have time/interest to provide an opinion on a lobster bib hook? --valereee (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: thanks for the additional comments. I revised ALT3 (that's the new ALT4) to reflect that the restaurant's owner created these "lobster bibs". I don't think in ALT2 that we need to specify that it is an either crab or oyster cocktail, because this might be too much info to put in the hook. I also did a QPQ. epicgenius (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg ALTs 1 and 4. Still not sure about ALT0, as there are three estimates in the article. 2800 is the middle, so it might be fine. ALT2 I still think needs context of time in the hook, but the cocktail thing may be okay. If the promoter prefers ALT0 or ALT2, ping me and we can continue to discuss, but I'm passing this for ALTs 1 and 4. --valereee (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lundy's Restaurant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JAH2k (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the article. It should be finished no later than 7 days from now. JAH2k (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Good work on using minimal direct quotes.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    History section could be shortened slightly but currently does not go overboard.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No edit war found within the last month.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Thank you Jim.henderson for your contributions to the article.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Few images in article do correspond to this criterion.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Great work on producing an excellent article.