Jump to content

Talk:Quintonil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Bruxton talk 04:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Pujol and Quintonil restaurants tied with two Michelin stars, the highest ratings in Mexico's first guide?
  • Source: [1] On Tuesday, the Michelin Guide announced its first-ever rankings for the country, with two two-star restaurants and 16 one-star spots.
5x expanded by Tbhotch (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 47 past nominations.

(CC) Tbhotch 04:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC). Both articles:[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice work. This looks good to go. Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Hi! Thanks for reviewing it. I noticed that I could also expand List of Michelin starred restaurants in Mexico. Can I add it to this nomination as follows?

Here is the QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Taste of Summer. (CC) Tbhotch 19:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin starred restaurants in Mexico:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: The List of Michelin starred restaurants in Mexico article is new enough, long enough, sourced, and has no issues with neutrality or plagiarism. As with my review above, the nomination is good to go with 3 bolded links. Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[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:Quintonil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Snatch! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: Finished. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Copyedited article myself, so it should be good now; didn't find any typos.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not bombarded with words on 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. Reference section is available.
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). Plenty o' reliable sources here! We've got coverage from CNN, Time Out, Eater, The Infatuation, Bon Appetit, Restaurant, Bloomberg, and El Universal.
2c. it contains no original research. Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. According to Earwig, the top result is at a 24.8% similarity. While not alarming, a considerable amount of text from the article is quoted. It can be easily paraphrased.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Broad coverage of the restaurant's description, history, and reception can be found. This is adequate information for an article about a restaurant.
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 promote or criticize the restaurant itself.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is stable.
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. Logo is in the public domain. Restaurant is under CC BY 2.0. Rest of the images are freely licensed.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. While the logo and restaurant building images are relevant, the eleven food images crammed into the description section don't seem to have a purpose. However, this isn't a major obstacle, so I'll let it slide. Captions are suitable.
7. Overall assessment. Yum!

Quickfail?

[edit]
  • Green tickY Article is stable.
  • Green tickY Earwig top result: 24.8%. No severe copyright violations.
  • Green tickY No mistakes in previous GA reviews to note.
  • Green tickY No cleanup banners or citation needed tags.
  • Green tickY No glaring errors.
Comment

Lead

[edit]
  • daily menu restaurant - As in the restaurant's menu is changed every day?
  • Yes. Does a term exist in English? Because I only found Menú del día
  • that are uncommon to taste in dishes - Tried rewording it to "that are uncommon in dishes". That correct?
  • Could remove the citation. The fact is cited later in the article.
Removed

Description

[edit]
  • "are brought" -> "are sourced"?
  • Changed
  • Should there be a separate section for the gallery?
  • Dishes include common ingredients like beans, squash, various chiles, and mushrooms - So like, the ingredients are dishes by themselves?
  • Reworded, I think.
  • A variation of the Mole Madre sold at Pujol is also available. - Not sure why this is mentioned if the reader doesn't know what the dish is.
  • I linked it to the mole itself
  • The wine menu is mainly European, with Mexican variants, - Does that mean the wine mostly comes from Europe?
  • Are the Mexican beverages on the wine menu?
  • Reworded, I think, for both.
  • Was the Entomophagy Festival a one-time thing? If so, when did it happen?
  • but business casual is commonly seen - Seems travel guide-esque or like a piece of advice you're trying to give to the reader. Should this be removed?
  • I removed the statement.

History

[edit]
  • Not sure why we need a link to "high school"
  • and they became a couple - Kinda feels awkward and unnecessary to squeeze this detail in. It doesn't sound right to me.
  • Cut "according to them"
  • into their homes like friends - Don't you mean neighbors?
  • Reworded, for these three points.
  • they even lived on the second floor of the restaurant for five years - I'm not sure if this is what directly inspired them to open a restaurant with a "family concept". It seems like trivia to me.
  • contribute to the menus with their reimagining of Quintonil's recipes -> "...provide new dishes"?
  • Reworded

Reception

[edit]
  • infrequent vegetables and herbs - What?
  • Tried replacing the Bon Appetit sentence with an actual quote from the source. Not sure if that works.
  • Shouldn't the Restaurant magazine ranks go in chronological order?

Spotchecking

[edit]
  • Five sources. Go! (References of this revision.)
  • #6 Red XN - Neither this source nor #7 mentions the nine-course tasting menu or the a la carte menu.
  • #10 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
  • #18 Red XN - Doesn't really mention the "cooking style" part
  • #25 Green tickY
  • #29 Green tickY
    Changed and reworded. (CC) Tbhotch 03:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.