# Talk:Schwa (restaurant)

My suggestion on this article is to rename it (and rework it slightly) so it's about the chef. Schwa can be a section (and redirected there) as the chef is more notable than the place and will likely have future establishments as with other celeb type chefs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Both the restaurant and the chef are obviously notable. See:00

Vermillion, Allecia (May 14, 2008). "Chicago's Most Wanted: SCHWA | Be flexible about mealtime, and you, too, can get into this hot spot". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved November 30, 2009.
Moskin, Julia (March 12, 2008). "Your Waiter Tonight... Will Be the Chef". The New York Times. Retrieved November 30, 2009.
Vettel, Phil (April 6, 2006). "Schwa's star power: It's a foodie's dream; just don't expect stellar service". Chicago Tribune. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |accssdate= ignored (help)
Eng, Monica (October 9, 2007). "Schwa serves what may be its last meal". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved November 30, 2009.
Bongomatic 03:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.  One article for each would be appropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As requested at the DYK suggestions page, I'll be offering some comments on this article. I'll be nearly as picky as I'd be on an FAC, so be prepared. It looks good in general, pretty well-written and comprehensive. I assessed it as B-class.

Lead: Too short. It should be an adequate summary of the article, which this isn't.
Yah, I hadn't really got around to writing a proper lead yet. I have done so now.  The article itself is still evolving, so it will be changing more in the days to come.
I'd still say it's a little too short, but it's best to have another look at that when you're done with the rest of the article. Ucucha 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
"Background" - don't think a "background" section is appropriate here. Perhaps split it into a "Description" and "History".
I never quite know what to call the first, introductory section.  I have taken your suggestion.
Per WP:EMDASH, you should be consistent in using either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, including in quotations.
Fixed
Either this is an extraordinarily good restaurant, or this article is not neutral.
Well, I've just been going by what the sources say and it is a three star restaurant.  However, I'll try to make some subtle improvements to the language as I continue to expand (and will add any complaints I find).
I understand; that's why I framed it as "either ... or". Ucucha 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
"By far, the most common complaint" - are there any others that can be cited?
Not that I know of... I've fixed the sentence to reflect that.
"renamed the restaurant Schwa" - not everyone is going to know that a schwa is an unstressed vowel, so it would be good to add that here.
added
three-month waiting list - wouldn't that piece of information be better placed in the previous section, where you've addressed the waiting periods at length?
I don't know.  The first section is talking about the current situation whereas this is being used as an example of its rapid rise to popularity...  I left it for now, but maybe I can find a less redundant way of saying it the future.
Fair enough, I see where you're coming from here. Ucucha 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In the lead, you said this gathering was "infamous"; that doesn't really come clear from the text about it in the body of the article.
The gathering is talked about in much more detail in Michael Carlson, which I've also been working on.  Mostly it is just infamous b/c it lead to Schwa's close.  I have dropped the "infamous" language while re-writing the lead.
Show, don't tell ;-) Ucucha 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
"The nine-course option, which actually consists of eight to ten courses on any given night," - what you mean to say is that there are eight to ten courses, but that on any particular night everyone gets the same number of courses, but I think this may be made clearer.
attempted reword
"Customers wanting wine are required to bring their own." - you already said that under "Background"
That stems from me not knowing where it fits in better, since it relates to both the menu and the general funkiness of the restaurant.  I have dropped it from the menu section for now.
"Acclaim" - changed to the more neutral-sounding "Reputation"
Is there nothing else to say in this section?
I have more stuff to add soon
Date of retrieval is missing for ref. 3.
fixed
Any chance you'd be able to get a picture of the restaurant itself?
That would certainly be nice.  I don't live near Chicago, so I will have to count on someone else helping out.  I'll leave a request at the appropriate venues.
Good luck! Ucucha 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hope these are some useful suggestions. Ucucha 04:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful indeed.  I have replied inline above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
And one more question. Is the menu photo really a free picture? The photographer who put it on Flickr may have released it, but he presumably doesn't own the rights to the menu itself, which are Carlson's. Ucucha 17:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I believe the presentation is too simple to be copyrightable.  Alternatively, I could move it from Commons to Wikipedia and add a fair use rationale if necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It might be worth checking it out with someone who knows more about this at commons:CT:L. Ucucha 18:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It should be licensed fair use I would think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I started a thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this, well-written and very interesting. Great to see such a neglected topic getting this treatment.  Skomorokh  21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words.  I really appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Thaddeus on getting this passed as a GA. As you asked on my talk, I'll give some additional comments on the article.

The maps need alt text, I think, but I'm not sure myself of the best way to handle this, as the caption already provides much of the information the alt text would contain.
"dingy" is used twice in adjacent sentences.
The Manual of Style requires logical quotation, but this article appears to use American quotation.
Phone calls: "Description" says it gets 60 calls a day, "History" that it got 100 a day before it was closed. This seems inconsistent with the Oscar-worthy redemption.
The last paragraph of "Menu and clientele" perhaps fits better under "Description", so you can name this section just "Menu".
As I said in the GA review, "Further reading" and "External links" may need a merger and/or pruning.
More to come... Ucucha 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Ref. numbers follow this version.) What makes the following reliable sources:
Zagat Survey (ref. 5 and 20)
Blackbook (ref. 7)
Metromix (ref. 12 and 19; those two are formatted differently)
Local Beet (ref. 23)
Ref. 13 appears oddly formatted. This is a magazine article, right?
Ref. 25 needs a publisher.
The link http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-144145758/schwa-star-power-foodie.html appears to be dead.
(I know this kind of thing can be a pain, but reliability of sources will be brought up at FAC, so you'd better make sure everything is right before you go there.)
The reputation section seems well-balanced. I think you'll likely get some comments about neutrality at FAC, but I think the article is balanced now. One thing you might do is mentioning some of the negative points (e.g., bad service) in the lead, which currently only contains positive points from the "Reputation" section.
In general, this is a really good article, the minor points above notwithstanding. It gives a comprehensive overview of the subject and is well-written. I think there are no current restaurant FAs; this one will serve as a great example for others. Ucucha 21:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your keen eye.  I will work through these issues over the next few days and get back to you when I think I've addressed them all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Schwa (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/20090114183848/http://chicago.metromix.com/home/review/schwa-green-zebra-3/421054/content to http://chicago.metromix.com/home/review/schwa-green-zebra-3/421054/content
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523033059/http://chicago.metromix.com/restaurants/restaurant_review/another-look-schwa/310300/content to http://chicago.metromix.com/restaurants/restaurant_review/another-look-schwa/310300/content
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) 20:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Schwa (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/20100306041803/http://chicagoist.com/2009/05/18/chicagoist_foor_pr0n_schwa.php to http://chicagoist.com/2009/05/18/chicagoist_foor_pr0n_schwa.php
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) 10:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)