Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the owner of Contramar opened it in Mexico City to recreate the experience of dining in a beachside palapa?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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. You can locate your hook here.No further edits should be made to this page.
Overall: Hello Tbhotch! The article was expanded from 282 characters (Special:Diff/1294477417) to 6239 characters between 27 and 29 August (Special:Diff/1308513264), which is roughly a 20-fold increase, and it was nominated within the seven-day timeframe, qualifying for DYK. It is a well-composed article, and Earwig shows only a 2% similarity. I spotchecked sources 6, 13, and 20 and found no issues. QPQ done. I personally like the hook and both PBS and El Economista support the hook fact. Although the El Economista source is not currently cited in the article, the sentence containing the hook fact is already further supported by citations from El País and the Los Angeles Times. I do not see a need to include this source as well and create a WP:REFBOMB. Good to go! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜18:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article. Feel free to push back against anything you disagree with. If it isn't a quick pass, we'll work together to get this article up to GA level. Any changes too minor to bother you with, I'll just do directly in the article - but feel free to discuss those as well.Ajay Platinum (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
The article prose is good and well structured. I have some suggestions on major areas of improvement to get the article up to GA standard.
1. Some sections of the prose must be rewritten to become more neutral or provide clarity. Some sentences can also be clubbed together for better readability. I will fix the prose while you work on my other comments, but feel free to let me know if you want to handle this/want clarification.
2. Some references are linked to a section labelled 'bibliography'. This is problematic for two reasons: bibliography implies that Contramar has published books (which is not the case) and the reader an additional step to verify the sources. I recommend properly including the book details (ISBN, links, WikiLinks, etc.) within the reference section itself.
Overall, this article has a good number of citations that can be verified. I spot-checked the references #1-15: some of these are not in the public domain (not an issue at present), some links are broken but have archival links, while #8 has a broken link (please include an archival link). I have some comments that require your attention:
1. I recommend adding citations to the second lead paragraph to support the many claims (Netflix documentary, Bib Gourmand, etc.). Additionally, I suggest including an English translation of 'pescado a la talla' and including the name of the Netflix documentary (as a citation and linked to Netflix/other sources) in this paragraph.
2. Please see my above comments on incorporating the bibliography into the Reference section for better readability and to expand some of the sources that look bare (e.g., #11, #12, #26-30). Take a look at this for how to cite books.
The article has a good collection of images (logo, popular dishes) and a map. The captions are appropriate and the image metadata appear in order. However, the restaurant entrance in this image is obscured by cars and does not add information to the article. I would recommend either replacing with a better image of the facade/interior or removing it altogether (if replacement images are not available in the public domain).
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article passes the GA criteria.
Overall, good job with getting this article in shape. I think it can be a very quick pass if you can address these comments. I will update the GA status for each criteria once you let me know it has been fixed. Thanks for your efforts in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles! Ajay Platinum (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
1a: "Some sections of the prose must be rewritten to become more neutral or provide clarity...": This is unclear and I'd thank you if you include examples. What is unneutral and what is unclear? Which sentences are choppy that can be merged together?
1a: "Some references are linked to a section labelled 'bibliography'...": Valid as per MOS:REFERENCES.
2a: "I recommend adding citations to the second lead paragraph to support the many claims": MOS:LEAD
2a: "I suggest including an English translation of 'pescado a la talla'": no official translation exists for it
2a: "expand some of the sources that look bare" They are not bare, {{sfn}} is a valid citation system.
6a: "the restaurant entrance in this image is obscured by cars". Parking in the area is allowed and it always looks like this, mainly since it is a popular tourist area. Even if cars were not parked, you can see that there are plants behind them, which will block the view as well. Taking an image of the entrance as you might be implying (example) has limited space as the sidewalk is small, the restaurant has outdoor service, people is commonly seen waiting outside, waiters are walking around, and the restaurant has a security team (all of them can be seen in front of the gray Jeep and next to the black Jeep). I can try to take a better picture in the future, but I will not go there to take pictures of living people eating there (something like here) because in Mexico consent to publish images of people is required.
6a: "does not add information to the article". It does as it is the facade. It shows the address ("200") and it indicates how the restaurant looks from the outside, even if obscured; that rooftop is unique in the street. Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 00:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reviewer's comments
1a: I have improved the prose. I don't intend to put down your writing style; but it can be elevated by making small changes to the language. For instance, in the lead, "... premise of creating a space that recreated the..." is repetitive. Breaking this sentence in two yields a simpler narrative for the reader. Next, Contramar is consistently called a restaurant in all references, not a 'diner'. I recommend replacing 'diner' with 'restaurant' to avoid extrapolation, since Diner implies a casual setting and predominantly food from the United States. I will also fix minor grammatical issues, such as "... created a supply platform that allows patrons to verify the...". Next, MOS:ATTRIBUTION encourages attribution to the most relevant, recognizable authority. In this case, it would apply to El Economista and not a minor journalist. This also brings WP:UNDUE into consideration by suggesting special authority where none might exist. However, please note that you have followed the appropriate attribution in the Reception section, since the restaurant's reviews are opinions of the critics and not necessarily of the publication.
1a: MOS:REFERENCES states that "full bibliographic citations" apply to "sources that were consulted in writing the article but that are not explicitly connected to any specific material in the article". However, the prose specifically refers to these books as inline citations (e.g., references 29-31 and others). Furthermore, the same MOS guidelines reiterate my concern that the term "Bibliography" can be mistaken for books published by Contramar, especially since your choice of references indicates that it has a prolific social presence. I observe that you recently edited the article to use the more neutral "Works cited" instead of bibliography, which solves my second concern. However, I still recommend collapsing "Works cited" into the "References" section. Although WP:CITESHORT is valid, it is intended to reduce bloating of inline citations. Other than Ref. 11 (Armstrong et al., 2022) which is repeated three times, the other books are only cited once each. Thus, bloating is a non-issue. If you disagree with my assessment and insist on citing the books separately, please provide an explanation and I am happy to accept your version.
2a: Noted on ref. #8. Thanks for fixing.
2a: Although it is common for citations to appear in the body, not the lead, MOS:LEADCITE notes that controversial or complex statements require citations to pre-empt these statements from being challenged. For instance, the following line: "Its signature red-and-green pescado a la talla has been widely imitated by other restaurants worldwide" invites challenges for being a subjective take. I recommend adding a citation to Ref. #6 since in the lead.
2a: Noted on the English translation for "pescado a la talla". Thanks for adding "red-and-green grilled snapper" in parentheses to make it more accessible to non-Spanish readers.
2a: Regarding Template:Sfn, please see my comments on replacing shortened citations/footnotes with regular references. As mentioned above, I will accept SFN if you can satisfactorily show that SFN is the most appropriate citation style for this article (not that SFN is merely valid).
4: The Reception section is unduly long and can be written in a more balanced/neutral manner. MOS:QUOTE encourages paraphrasing quotations into simple, concise text and doing away with sporadic quotation marks since they might imply suspicion rather than refer to a statement in the source. I have rewritten this section to be more balanced and concise, in line with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on verbosity of content.
6a: I understand why it might not be possible to get a better image, and I do not expect you to undertake the bureaucratic hassles of getting the necessary permissions. Thanks for your comments; I deem this image acceptable.
2a. The statement is not controversial, unless people challenge it. Until that occurs, the same link you provided says this: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 20:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Reviewer's reply
1a. Although it is a recommendation to improve the article's readability, you do have a valid point: good articles do not need to meet ALL aspects of the Wikipedia:Manual_of_style.
2a. MOS:LEADCITE states, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged..." The lead is a reader's first introduction to your article and it is my opinion that this sentence may open needless discussion (which was my first thought when reading the lead, along with wondering about the Netflix documentary, a problem that you have since fixed). I recommend adding a citation to reference #6. However, this is not a deal breaker. Since you have satisfactorily met all other criteria, I intend to pass this GAR regardless of whether you add the citation or not.
Final note: In case you have any final comments, I am leaving this GAR open until Thursday, 08 January 2026, and will then pass it sometime during that day. Congratulations on another good article and thanks for being receptive to my comments. Ajay Platinum (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg)
Hello Tbhotch! The article was expanded from 282 characters (Special:Diff/1294477417) to 6239 characters between 27 and 29 August (Special:Diff/1308513264), which is roughly a 20-fold increase, and it was nominated within the seven-day timeframe, qualifying for DYK. It is a well-composed article, and Earwig shows only a 2% similarity. I spotchecked sources 6, 13, and 20 and found no issues. QPQ done. I personally like the hook and both PBS and El Economista support the hook fact. Although the El Economista source is not currently cited in the article, the sentence containing the hook fact is already further supported by citations from El País and the Los Angeles Times. I do not see a need to include this source as well and create a WP:REFBOMB. Good to go! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 18:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
