Talk:Cheese & Crack Snack Shop/GA1

GA review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Another Believer (talk · contribs) 17:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 16:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Cheese. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

& Crack! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Whew... took long enough! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

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.	The article's prose was readable. No typos were spotted.
	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. No words from the WTW list have been spotted in the article. 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.	Article has a reference section. No bare URLs spotted.
	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).	The majority of citations are from reputable sources, such as Portland Monthly, Eater, The Oregonian, and Willamette Week.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig detects a 7.4% similarity, so copyright violations are unlikely.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article contains detailed information on the restaurant's interior, exterior, menu, history, and reception.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays on topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article stays neutral; it does not try to promote or criticize the business itself.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable. No edit wars have occurred in the past week.
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.	The restaurant logo is tagged with the correct copyright status, and a sufficient fair use rationale for the image is provided. Images of the restaurant's interior and exterior are both tagged with a free license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Mmm... crackers...

Before we begin

• I'm guessing it's because of the ampersand in the title, but Earwig doesn't let you view the copyright report of this article directly. I'll just link it here.

Lead

• No obvious errors here.

Description

• "Thom Hilton of Eater Portland has described the queer-owned business as a 'social media sensation' with long queues and 'high-profile' customers, including Paul Thomas Anderson and Maya Rudolph." -> "It is a queer-owned business described by Thom Hilton of Eater Portland as a 'social media sensation' with 'high-profile customers'..." - Just a bit of rearranging here and there.
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Not sure about mentioning the "rustic charm" of the restaurant??
  • I think "rustic" can be a helpful descriptor. _--Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• "in the window" - As like a window display?
  • Yup! But I did not link to Display window because to me that's when there's a dedicated space meant to showcase products. That's not really the same as attaching a picture of a musician to a window. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Menu

• "...cheeses such as brie ganache, honey, jam, and oatmeal raisin cookies." - This list is confusing to read through. There's too many items in one list, and I'm not sure if all of them belong to the same antecedent.
  • Better? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
    • That works! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• What's a sampler plate?
  • Usually a few appetizers so someone can try an assortment of offerings. I don't really see a Wikipedia article to link to, though. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• "The menu also includes soft serve..." -> Couldn't we technically say "desserts", since the paragraph is mostly about that?
  • Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• "Another sundae has cookie, ganache, and marshmallow." - Why single this one out?
  • Wasn't sure what this option was called, but wanted to mention the ingredients. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• What does "on tap" mean?
  • As in "draught" or "draft", but I didn't think it would be appropriate to link to Draught beer specifically. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

History

• "Cheese & Crack was established in 2012. Co-owned by business partners Nathan Hall and William Steuernagel..." -> "Cheese & Crack was established in 2012 by business partners Nathan Hall and William Steuernagel."
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Reception

• Can't spot any mistakes here. Well done!
  • Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Spotchecking

• Will review 14 of the 35 sources. Permalink here.
  • #1: Y (also moved it out of the lead)
  • #2: Y (did the same)
  • #4: Y
  • #5: Y Y Y Y
  • #6: Y
  • #9: Y Y Y
  • #10: Y
  • #14: Y
  • #16: Y
  • #20: Y
  • #22: Y
  • #24: Y
  • #27: Y
  • #30: Y

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.