# Talk:Lundy's Restaurant

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lundy's Restaurant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927000756/http://splendidtable.publicradio.org/whereweeat/stern_lundys.html to http://splendidtable.publicradio.org/whereweeat/stern_lundys.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lundy's Restaurant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JAH2k (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I will be reviewing the article. It should be finished no later than 7 days from now. JAH2k (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Good work on using minimal direct quotes.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
History section could be shortened slightly but currently does not go overboard.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No edit war found within the last month.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Thank you Jim.henderson for your contributions to the article.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Few images in article do correspond to this criterion.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Great work on producing an excellent article.