FirstAlerts

Birdman Ramen, Chicago, Failed Its Inspection

City of Chicago health inspection records show Birdman Ramen failed an inspection on August 14, 2026.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 5:58 p.m. ET
, located at in , , Illinois, failed a health inspection on August 14, 2026, according to City of health inspection records. The inspection record shows no later inspection of this establishment, though it may have been re-inspected since without the record being updated. The establishment was categorized as . During the August 14 inspection, the inspector observed expanding foam used to seal holes that had been chewed into, and instructed the establishment to use appropriate materials to smoothly seal all holes. The inspector noted soiled exterior surfaces of greasetraps, uncleaned upper interior surfaces of a basement ice machine, floors throughout soiled with food debris and grease (including floor sinks), and clutter in basement areas. The inspector also cited an uncorrected violation from an August 7, 2026 inspection report, which had noted over 25 rat droppings in the dining area. Upon the August 14 re-inspection, the inspector recorded over 20 rat droppings along the wallbase at the bar, over 25 rat droppings in the kitchen prep area behind cooking equipment, over 40 rat droppings in the dry storage area behind the heating unit and enclosed dry storage, and over 10 on window ledging with pots of plants. Citations were issued, and the establishment was instructed to detail clean, sanitize affected areas, consult a pest control company, and eliminate rodent activity.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 21:58current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.