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 Flibirigit (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Overall: Hooks are not very hooky. Bigger problem is that it needs to be rewritten Right now it sounds like a promotional guide for the restaurant. --evrik(talk) 01:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
evrik, can you identify what portions or passages you object to specifically? I wrote it in the same style as Kissa Tanto, which is arguably more positive (St. Lawrence at least has some criticism about pricing) but passed DYK with no issues. I literally ground the internet to dust looking for anything critical to say about either place just to make sure I wasn't omitting anything. Both are modeled to a certain extent after restaurant GAs like The Fat Duck. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The whole article reads like a promotion. I suggest getting someone to copyedit it to make it more neutral. --evrik(talk) 01:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, can you point to any specific portions that you object to? I don't agree that it is promotional, and without anything more specific to get into it's difficult to see what you're getting at or even make any changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Just repeating "it's the whole thing" over and over again does not make your criticism any more constructive or helpful. IMO if you were actually interested in improving the article, you would be able to point to at least a few examples of what you think is wrong (especially when compared to restaurant GAs like The Fat Duck or Schwa, which it is explicitly modelled on). I honestly can't understand your refusal to at least make an attempt at highlighting what you think is wrong. If you can't be bothered to do so, I would appreciate another reviewer. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee:, I noticed you write many restaurant articles. Would you like to review this nomination, or offer a second opinion if I reviewed? Flibirigit (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Flibirigit, whoops, sorry, I missed seeing this! I'll be happy to take a look at it, will do tomorrow! —valereee (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks in advance Valereee. PMC, how would you feel about using a photo of a tourtiere or poutine in the article and or hook? I think it would help illustrate the points. Flibirigit (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, good thought. I emailed the restaurant and asked if they'll donate a photo of the tourtiere with the little flag on it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Flibirigit, I've gone through the article and quite a few of the sources. There are a couple of sources I tried to get to and couldn't (PMC, query at talk re one) and I did remove some of what seemed to me like puffery/made a few changes that turned down the praise a bit, maybe? If you'd like to review, I'd be glad to give a second/third opinion if we need one. Having GOCE go through it is never a bad idea when someone thinks something might be too florid, though! :) —valereee (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted a couple of your changes. For example, the removal (rather than moving) of the bit about French-speaking staff made the later mention of them come out of nowhere, so I've restored it and moved it down. I tweaked your wording about the desserts - "old-fashioned and heavy" just felt so lifeless. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Weren't you going to leave this to another reviewer? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, I offer a help, and you offer a rude response? Sorry I offered the link. --evrik(talk) 01:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually no, you have not offered anything resembling help. I asked several times above for you to highlight passages you had issues with so that I could make changes. You refused. You have also already linked GOCE above, so linking it again and suggesting I ask for "more help" after you offered to let another reviewer handle the DYK is just downright condescending. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I can review this. I've made some minor tweaks so far. At first reading, does not seem obviously biased. I don't think GOCE is needed. Will have to look through the sources in more detail. I'll add comments below and ping when I'm totally done. starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
In 2018, its first eligible year, it was ranked 20th on the Canada's 100 Best list - how do we know the bold part? - starship
It opened in 2017, ergo, the first year for which it can be listed is the next year's list - 2018. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, the 2017 list was released before this opened. - starship
"St. Lawrence is so plainly [Poirier's] passion project. You see and taste the love." - the bold part seems rather vague and repetitive. How about replacing the bold part with a sentence from the same paragraph in the same source? "It's the food he grew up with, although amped up in sophistication and using the best of ingredients." - starship
Ironically, I actually avoided including that initially because "best of ingredients" felt like it was verging on unnecessarily positive. I've inserted it now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah it's positive but it reflects the review, so I'm fine with it. - starship
Grace Cheung was particularly fond of several menu items featuring cheese - it was two items, right? chèvre noire and Oka? "several" seems connotative of more than two. Perhaps "multiple"? - starship
Having double-checked the menu, the tartare she mentions also has cheese in it. -PMC
Okay cool. - starship
Executive chef and co-owner J.C. Poirier - the sources seem to say simply chef, and owner. Alternatively, how about calling him chef patron? - starship
This Globe & Mail source says executive chef, as does the restaurant's website. I've added it as a third ref after that sentence. -PMC
Okay cool, what about co-owner? Source says previous Poirier restaurants are co-owned, but doesn't refer to this one. - starship
Hm. The wording of the first paragraph at [1] seemed to imply STL was co-owned with KTRG, but I think I may have misread it. The Kitchen Table Group's website doesn't mention STL, although this and this list STL as a KTRG joint. On re-read, some of the other sources already cited mention that Poirier is a co-founder and/or partner in KTRG, so it's possible those two sources just lumped STL in for convenience. I suppose "owner" is the most correct rather than co-owner. -PMC
I found [2] this source says co-owner, so your call on where to go. - starship
Yeah, that's the source I linked that I said I misread. I think the wording there means "co-owner of Ask for Luigi". -PMC
Oops, yes, you're right. Since you've changed it, it's fixed :) starship.paint (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It was an anchor store for Vancouver's Japanese community. ... The family was forced out of the building when the Canadian government remanded Japanese-Canadians to internment camps following the Canadian declaration of war on Japan. - bolded parts go further than the source provided. - starship
Sorry, what? This source, right in the headline, says "The Komura family were forced out of the building in 1942, when Japanese-Canadians were evicted from the west coast by the federal government." The reason that Japanese-Canadians were evicted from the west coast was because they were being forced into internment camps, and the reason they were being forced into camps was...World War 2. -PMC
Source I added mentions the community "radiating out" from this building and another one nearby; I think it's safe to call it an anchor on that basis. -PMC
Yes, that's alright. - starship
and a large cream-and-black sign with the restaurant's name hangs above the door on the building's second floor - don't see this in the source text or any of the source's photos.
Really? It's big, it's black, the lettering for "St. Lawrence" is cream-colored, and it's hung on the second floor above the entrance. -PMC
Yeah, but that's your own photo. Could you instead put that text in the caption? - starship
That makes no sense. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, sources are only needed for material likely to be challenged and need verification. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia, there's no need for citations for descriptions "that are verifiable directly from the image itself". So since the reader can just...look over at the photo and verify the color and placement of the signage, I doubt it's likely to be challenged, and I think it's a bit silly to ask for the information to be moved. -PMC
Oh, it's alright. Another source has the photo, so my concern is moot. - starship
The plating style at St. Lawrence is simple and rustic - source says: Dishes are simply presented (on elegant, branded plates) with very little in the way presentation flourish - is rustic there?
Jesus, no, the word rustic isn't there in the source verbatim, but does it have to be? They plate unpretentiously and serve some stuff in cans. Honestly I feel like this has become a GA review with the level of pickiness that's going on here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have frustrated you in my style of reviewing, PMC. Yes, my style is picky. I have no idea if serving stuff in cans relate to the countryside, for one meaning of rustic. The other meaning of rustic would be "simple", which you already used, so isn't that just unneeded repetition. Furthermore, the source stresses that the plates are in fact elegant and branded, which gives off the opposite impression than serving in cans, IMO. Plus the cans were described as cheeky, was it not? starship.paint (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It's frustrating because this is not what DYK is supposed to be. If this were a GA or FA nom, I'd be all in - that's a content review for a stamp of quality. But DYK is supposed to be "did you fuck up anywhere majorly? Nope? Great, carry on." Instead I get a discussion about whether or not to use "several" vs "multiple", the color of a sign (thank god it's in a photo in a review, or else that might have become a federal issue) and whether or not "rustic" is an appropriate word to use to describe a relatively simple plating style. For what it's worth, plating doesn't refer to what the plates look like. It refers to the process of arranging the food on the plate to make it look a certain way. In the case at someplace like Botanist (another upscale Vancouver restaurant of comparative pricing/prestige) the plating is pretentious as shit - beautifully cut teeny weeny little bits of steak adorned with little bits of flower, a salad where the beets are cut and placed in the shape of a heart, little swipes of sauce on the plate to contrast with the color of the whatever, etc etc. They're showing off. In contrast, at STL, the food goes on the plate with very little adornment. It's not thoughtless, and it looks nice because they're not just hurling it on the plate with a ladle, but it's not overly concerned with unnecessary aesthetic flourishes the way Botanist's plating is (in other words, there is "very little in the way of presentation flourish"). Hence, "rustic". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I've changed it to "unpretentious". I pray that's acceptable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It's acceptable. Sorry about the misunderstanding regarding the plates. IOn my reviewing, DYK articles may be incomplete, but they must conform to the core policies of Verifiability. My checks are based on that. I don't wish to approve unverifiable information. starship.paint (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not to use the word "rustic," "simple," "unpretentious," "unadorned," or any of a number of other synonyms that mean essentially the same thing is not a verifiability issue. It's a style issue. In any case, thank you for approving the DYK. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
almost done. ALT1 approved. starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT1, but the source gives the reason for the flag as a humorous touch; it doesn't mention anything about a nod to the menu's Quebecois origins, nor does the text in the article. Do you want to just leave off that explanation? Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This DYK is going to be the death of me, I swear. Okay, let's try:
Also, I've secured a photo of the tourtiere (gentle email harassment does work, as it turns out). They've said they'll do the OTRS email tomorrow so that's pending. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
ALT3 works for me, thanks. The hook is exactly 200 char, verified and cited inline. The building image is kind of ho-hum, but if another one is coming, let me know. Meanwhile, ALT3 is good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, the link in my comment above is for a pic of the tourtiere. I linked it rather than put it inline because the PR rep for the restaurant stated he was fine with a free release but hasn't emailed in the media release to OTRS yet, so it's kind of in a grey area at the moment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
OK. Yes, that's a great image. Let us know when the approval comes through. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Will do. I'm planning to give them a little nudge on Monday or Tuesday in case it got sort of lost in the Friday/weekend shuffle. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, OTRS permission is now confirmed; I've added the image above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos: Great! Do you think the image could benefit from a square crop to get rid of some of the brown on top and bottom? Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
If you want to, go for it; I like it as-is but not enough to bother reverting changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah and PMC: I think the square crop is better because it makes the flag and the tourtière appear larger, but they're both fine. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Eh, I still prefer the vertical one, but not enough to dispute it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, anything else that needs doing here? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos: We're just waiting for a promoter. Since I approved the alt hook, unfortunately I can't promote it. Yoninah (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I forgot about that rule, sorry about the ping - I thought there was something I'd missed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
- n
Hooks are not very hooky. Bigger problem is that it needs to be rewritten Right now it sounds like a promotional guide for the restaurant. --evrik (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
--evrik (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
almost done. ALT1 approved. starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- all issues settled. starship.paint (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT1, but the source gives the reason for the flag as a humorous touch; it doesn't mention anything about 
ALT3 works for me, thanks. The hook is exactly 200 char, verified and cited inline. The building image is kind of ho-hum, but if another one is coming, let me know. Meanwhile, ALT3 is good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)