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.
Heya! Responding to your talk message: on the contrary actually; I was looking for GANs recently and first looked at the restaurant section but found no nominations, so thanks for this one! On a brief scroll this article looks good, expect a complete review soon. Oh and this is probably poor advertising but, I also have
a peer review still unreviewed, if you're interested you can take a look at it, but no pressure of course. GeraldWL15:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Suggest removing links on "the O" and "PoMo" as duplicate links.
Disagree. The average reader does not know what "the O" or "PoMo" means, especially if they read this part of the article before seeing full mention of The Oregonian or Portland Monthly. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)18:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
How about changing them to "[The Oregonian]" and "[Portland Monthly]"? But if you disagree with that too, I'll let this pass. GeraldWL03:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Don't feel strongly, but I think leaving the text alone is fine; those who get the references don't need to click on the links, and those who do can click on the link for context. Thanks! ---
Another Believer(
Talk)04:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Any reason the Business Journal article can't be used as reference? Asking since I can't access the article. If unusable, I suggest moving it to a Further reading section, if appropriate.
Other than that, wonderful job! Consulting the previous restaurant GANs, this one seems broad enough; it stays focused, is neutral, and there are no edit wars or CV.
The logo image needs an alt text. The non-free rationale looks all good to me, and I don't think we need to wait for the bot to delete the previous version like I remember doing at a GAN (tip for future: if you wanna resize a copyrighted image yourself, go to
this calculator). A photo of the place's location would be great, but it's fine for now.
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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.