FirstAlerts
Food Safety Inspections

Coleman's Barbeque 2 LLC in Chicago Fails Inspection

Chicago's inspection record shows Coleman's Barbeque 2 LLC failed its September 1, 2026 inspection with multiple priority violations.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 3, 2026, 5:55 a.m. ET
, located at in , on September 1, 2026, according to the City of 's inspection record. The establishment was cited for a category failure. The inspection recorded numerous violations, including no hand soap at a rear prep area handwashing sink, no paper towels at handwashing sinks in food prep and dishwashing areas, sticky fly trap rolls hanging in the rear prep/dishwashing area, a gap at the bottom of the rear exit door, stained cutting boards, a torn door gasket on a cooler, no chemical sanitizing test kit, no covered waste receptacle in the unisex washroom, excessive grease build-up under deep fryers, dust on walls and ceiling, and grease accumulation on the kitchen exhaust hood. The record also notes that previous core violations from an inspection dated May 5, 2025, were not corrected, including expired food handler certificates and missing allergen training certificates.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 13 Sept 2026, 09:55current

    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.