Talk:Contramar/GA1

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article prose is good and well structured. I have some suggestions on major areas of improvement to get the article up to GA standard.

   1. Some sections of the prose must be rewritten to become more neutral or provide clarity. Some sentences can also be clubbed together for better readability. I will fix the prose while you work on my other comments, but feel free to let me know if you want to handle this/want clarification.

   2. Some references are linked to a section labelled 'bibliography'. This is problematic for two reasons: bibliography implies that Contramar has published books (which is not the case) and the reader an additional step to verify the sources. I recommend properly including the book details (ISBN, links, WikiLinks, etc.) within the reference section itself.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Overall, this article has a good number of citations that can be verified. I spot-checked the references #1-15: some of these are not in the public domain (not an issue at present), some links are broken but have archival links, while #8 has a broken link (please include an archival link). I have some comments that require your attention:

   1. I recommend adding citations to the second lead paragraph to support the many claims (Netflix documentary, Bib Gourmand, etc.). Additionally, I suggest including an English translation of 'pescado a la talla' and including the name of the Netflix documentary (as a citation and linked to Netflix/other sources) in this paragraph.

   2. Please see my above comments on incorporating the bibliography into the Reference section for better readability and to expand some of the sources that look bare (e.g., #11, #12, #26-30). Take a look at this for how to cite books.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The overall article structure and prose are broad, while the individual sections are focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I find the article prose must be improved to present an NPOV compared to its current form (see my first comment). I will assist you with this.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article appears stable based on its edit history.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article has a good collection of images (logo, popular dishes) and a map. The captions are appropriate and the image metadata appear in order. However, the restaurant entrance in this image is obscured by cars and does not add information to the article. I would recommend either replacing with a better image of the facade/interior or removing it altogether (if replacement images are not available in the public domain).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article passes the GA criteria.

Overall, good job with getting this article in shape. I think it can be a very quick pass if you can address these comments. I will update the GA status for each criteria once you let me know it has been fixed. Thanks for your efforts in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles! Ajay Platinum (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

1a: "Some sections of the prose must be rewritten to become more neutral or provide clarity...": This is unclear and I'd thank you if you include examples. What is unneutral and what is unclear? Which sentences are choppy that can be merged together?

1a: "Some references are linked to a section labelled 'bibliography'...": Valid as per MOS:REFERENCES.

2a: "while #8 has a broken link". It is live

2a: "I recommend adding citations to the second lead paragraph to support the many claims": MOS:LEAD

2a: "I suggest including an English translation of 'pescado a la talla'": no official translation exists for it

2a: "expand some of the sources that look bare" They are not bare, {{sfn}} is a valid citation system.

6a: "the restaurant entrance in this image is obscured by cars". Parking in the area is allowed and it always looks like this, mainly since it is a popular tourist area. Even if cars were not parked, you can see that there are plants behind them, which will block the view as well. Taking an image of the entrance as you might be implying (example) has limited space as the sidewalk is small, the restaurant has outdoor service, people is commonly seen waiting outside, waiters are walking around, and the restaurant has a security team (all of them can be seen in front of the gray Jeep and next to the black Jeep). I can try to take a better picture in the future, but I will not go there to take pictures of living people eating there (something like here) because in Mexico consent to publish images of people is required.

6a: "does not add information to the article". It does as it is the facade. It shows the address ("200") and it indicates how the restaurant looks from the outside, even if obscured; that rooftop is unique in the street. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer's comments

1a: I have improved the prose. I don't intend to put down your writing style; but it can be elevated by making small changes to the language. For instance, in the lead, "... premise of creating a space that recreated the..." is repetitive. Breaking this sentence in two yields a simpler narrative for the reader. Next, Contramar is consistently called a restaurant in all references, not a 'diner'. I recommend replacing 'diner' with 'restaurant' to avoid extrapolation, since Diner implies a casual setting and predominantly food from the United States. I will also fix minor grammatical issues, such as "... created a supply platform that allows patrons to verify the...". Next, MOS:ATTRIBUTION encourages attribution to the most relevant, recognizable authority. In this case, it would apply to El Economista and not a minor journalist. This also brings WP:UNDUE into consideration by suggesting special authority where none might exist. However, please note that you have followed the appropriate attribution in the Reception section, since the restaurant's reviews are opinions of the critics and not necessarily of the publication.

1a: MOS:REFERENCES states that "full bibliographic citations" apply to "sources that were consulted in writing the article but that are not explicitly connected to any specific material in the article". However, the prose specifically refers to these books as inline citations (e.g., references 29-31 and others). Furthermore, the same MOS guidelines reiterate my concern that the term "Bibliography" can be mistaken for books published by Contramar, especially since your choice of references indicates that it has a prolific social presence. I observe that you recently edited the article to use the more neutral "Works cited" instead of bibliography, which solves my second concern. However, I still recommend collapsing "Works cited" into the "References" section. Although WP:CITESHORT is valid, it is intended to reduce bloating of inline citations. Other than Ref. 11 (Armstrong et al., 2022) which is repeated three times, the other books are only cited once each. Thus, bloating is a non-issue. If you disagree with my assessment and insist on citing the books separately, please provide an explanation and I am happy to accept your version.

2a: Noted on ref. #8. Thanks for fixing.

2a: Although it is common for citations to appear in the body, not the lead, MOS:LEADCITE notes that controversial or complex statements require citations to pre-empt these statements from being challenged. For instance, the following line: "Its signature red-and-green pescado a la talla has been widely imitated by other restaurants worldwide" invites challenges for being a subjective take. I recommend adding a citation to Ref. #6 since in the lead.

2a: Noted on the English translation for "pescado a la talla". Thanks for adding "red-and-green grilled snapper" in parentheses to make it more accessible to non-Spanish readers.

2a: Regarding Template:Sfn, please see my comments on replacing shortened citations/footnotes with regular references. As mentioned above, I will accept SFN if you can satisfactorily show that SFN is the most appropriate citation style for this article (not that SFN is merely valid).

4: The Reception section is unduly long and can be written in a more balanced/neutral manner. MOS:QUOTE encourages paraphrasing quotations into simple, concise text and doing away with sporadic quotation marks since they might imply suspicion rather than refer to a statement in the source. I have rewritten this section to be more balanced and concise, in line with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on verbosity of content.

6a: I understand why it might not be possible to get a better image, and I do not expect you to undertake the bureaucratic hassles of getting the necessary permissions. Thanks for your comments; I deem this image acceptable.

6a: Although the uniqueness of the rooftop might be a subjective opinion, your comment on the door number ("200") is valid and duly noted. Ajay Platinum (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

1a. As per WP:GA? § 1b: "[the article] complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles." What you are requesting is part of WP:FA? § 2c instead, which falls within the instructions of WP:CITEVAR.

2a. The statement is not controversial, unless people challenge it. Until that occurs, the same link you provided says this: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 20:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer's reply

1a. Although it is a recommendation to improve the article's readability, you do have a valid point: good articles do not need to meet ALL aspects of the Wikipedia:Manual_of_style.

2a. MOS:LEADCITE states, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged..." The lead is a reader's first introduction to your article and it is my opinion that this sentence may open needless discussion (which was my first thought when reading the lead, along with wondering about the Netflix documentary, a problem that you have since fixed). I recommend adding a citation to reference #6. However, this is not a deal breaker. Since you have satisfactorily met all other criteria, I intend to pass this GAR regardless of whether you add the citation or not.

Final note: In case you have any final comments, I am leaving this GAR open until Thursday, 08 January 2026, and will then pass it sometime during that day. Congratulations on another good article and thanks for being receptive to my comments. Ajay Platinum (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)