Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 01:16, 6 January 2025

List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Washington, D.C.

List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Washington, D.C./archive1

Nominator(s): Expandinglight5 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is well-organized, follows the style guide set by the task force and closely resembles the List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Mexico which has achieved FL status. Expandinglight5 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's weird how little of the lead is directly about the DC list. The Mexico list has similarly little but at least has the local context as the second paragraph, but this doesn't get to the list's actual topic until the third, and there's still not a lot of summarization. What else can you tell me in the lead about these restaurants? Can you also mention that the local tourism board has to pay for the guide to be made? Reywas92 05:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I formatted the article starting with the history of the guide and then moving into the specific content about Washington, D.C. which leads into the list. I've added some content about background of the dining scene in D.C. Adding content about Michelin charging the local tourism boards seems more like content belonging to the Michelin Guide page rather than the specific list for the region. Thoughts?

Expandinglight5 (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

An article should include background, but you shouldn't have to get to the third paragraph before the present article is introduced. Presumably anyone who gets to this article already knows what the Michelin guide is. It should really start with at least saying there are 26 current starred restaurants, then get into the background – one reason besides just getting to the point is that the preview ought to show page-specific information, not the generic content that may be duplicate across the set. Apparently the tourism board wasn't involved here like in other cities, but still has good DC-specific info that could absolutely be in the article – anything relevant to this particular guide and its listings can be included.

I think the statistics with the exact populations and income levels aren't necessary though – that's conceptual background with unnecessary specificity rather than about DC's starred restaurants. You added nothing that further introduces this list's content. But I also see that you literally just copied and pasted this paragraph from the souce, which in turn quoted from the DC Policy Center, albeit with quotation marks. That's a copyright violation and honestly embarrassing. Reywas92 21:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The tourism boards come into play as Michelin expands into smaller markets, typically ones that historically were not large enough to support printed publication. It isn't clear if the tourism board for Washington, D.C. is involved today in keeping the reviews continuing to exist given the fact North American regions are no longer in publication.

The content regarding populations and incomes aren't a direct copy and paste and minor revisions were made from the original content. I will edit it further if there is concern over copyright violation.

Thank you for the feedback on background and suggested order. I'll make subsequent edits.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I noticed the minor changes but that's far from good enough (this is much closer to a direct copy than even a WP:Close paraphrase) and I hope not representative of your edits elsewhere. But those stats aren't needed at all, even if reworded. I'd hope the lead can get into some extra facts about the restaurants themselves, one example could be noting that Aaron Silverman is the chef for three of them. Reywas92 21:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Good ideas. I appreciate the feedback on all topics.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose and image review:

• Well, the image caption is incorrect; it's not Washington, D.C.-based as the lede states.
• Since the list is sortable, you should link all the mentions of each cuisine, not just its first mention by default. (It also might be useful to explain what "contemporary cuisine" means, potentially as a footnote as its def. less self-explanatory than the rest)
• Image is correctly licensed and appropriate
• Agree with what Reywas said above; also perhaps a sentence or two of independent information about the D.C. cuisine scene overall could be nice.

That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I've addressed the caption on the image as well as the cuisine links. I'll add additional content regarding Michelin as well as the dining scene Expandinglight5 (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't think the article should start with a one-sentence "paragraph". Merge it with the one after.
• "based on its evaluation methodology: One star means" - no reason for capital mid-sentence
• Third "paragraph" is also just one sentence. Merge it with the one after.
• No need to link Washington D.C. twice in two sentences near the end of the lead.
• No need to link List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Chicago ⋅twice in consecutive sentences
• "Michelin awarded stars to The Inn at Little Washington, which is in Virginia." - the fact that this is the only restaurant in the guide ever awarded three stars surely merits mention in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I've revised for bullets 2-5. I'll work on incorporating changes for the first and final bullet this week.

  Expandinglight5 (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I made a couple of changes myself and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! 2017 becomes !scope=col | 2017. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |] becomes !scope=row | ]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @PresN @tbhotch

  • Caption text has already been included. |+Michelin-starred restaurants is the caption text. Please advise if I need to make revisions on this item but I believe this is correct.
  • Column scopes have been added to the table.
  • Thank you for bringing to my attention row scopes on the “primary row” as this wasn’t an item I was familiar with on Misplaced Pages and in reviewing another featured list (Michelin Mexico) it doesn’t appear to have scoped rows. Perhaps this was an oversight during FLC review? I am using scoped rows for the star ratings similar to the Mexico list.

  In reviewing other featured lists such as List of freshwater islands in Scotland and List of awards and nominations received by Aerosmith, these don’t have scoped rows either. Is there a reason in these examples why they wouldn’t’ have scoped rows?

  I don’t oppose the scoped rows but I’m working on improving our current style guide and would like to make The Michelin-starred lists consistent and understanding this requirement is helpful.

  Expandinglight5 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042 comments

• "financial partners for creation of new guides," -> "financial partners for the creation of new guides," History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• "chefs such as Aaron Silverman and José Andrés have restaurants" -> "chefs, such as Aaron Silverman and José Andrés, have restaurants" History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Both of History6042 comments have been updated.

  Expandinglight5 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe the reference right after "Patrick O'Connell's" should be moved to the end. I'm not sure about that though. That's all I've got. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I put the reference after the chef instead of at the end of the sentence to support the "James Beard Award-winning" chefs similar to Aaron Silverman and Jose Andres. However if you feel it's correct at the end of the sentence, I'm fine to move it. Expandinglight5 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  No you're right. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've got some more. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• "that was not the case with Washington, D.C. and" -> " that was not the case with the Washington, D.C. guide and"
• "and it was an extension of existing US Michelin guides." -> "because it was an extension of existing US Michelin guides." This seems to be a cause not just an additional statement. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've made revisions. I used "rather" than "because" feeling it described the scenario better. Let me know if you see anything else and if you're in support. Expandinglight5 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's all I couldfind. So I'll support this nomination. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)