Engilsh 1

Critic’s Notebook: What to Look for at the Restaurant

Basics

❏ Name of restaurant

❏ Location

❏ Phone number

❏ Genre

❏ Neighborhood

Large-scale physical detail

❏ Parking

❏ View from outside

❏ First impressions

❏ Number of rooms

❏ Number of tables, spacing between tables

❏ Waiting area

❏ Restrooms

❏ Atmosphere

❏ Decor

❏ Music/noise

Clientele

❏ Nationality

❏ Class

❏ Age

❏ Gender

❏ Other?

Restaurant’s story

❏ When first opened?

❏ Under what circumstances?

❏ Since then?

❏ Owner

❏ Manager

❏ Chef

Menu

❏ What’s it look like?

❏ Easy to understand?

❏ Range of choices?

❏ Range in cost?

❏ Comparisons to other local restaurants

❏ Prices?

❏ Reasonable?

Quality of food

(repeat for each dish)

❏ Physical description (moist, flakey, peppery, mushy)

❏ Serving size (large, small, etc.)?

❏ Speed prepared?

Service

❏ Reservations

❏ Waiting time

❏ Waitresses/Waiters

❏ Friendly?

❏ Quick?

❏ Number of table visits

Little details that count

❏ Web page

❏ Hours

❏ Dress code

❏ Credit cards

Parfait

“Publish this on Page 1

of the food section!”

Tres bien

“Publish this inside the food section!”

Petit problème

“Revise and we’ll talk later.”

Grande problème

“Need to visit the restaurant again?”

This review, so polished that it reads as if it were clipped from a top-notch publication, does most or all of the following:

❏ Fairly but critically evaluates service, decor, food, and so forth; offers a developed, firm, convincing point of view.

❏ Artfully weaves in a theme and/or the story of the restaurant, its neighborhood, owners or chefs.

❏ Employs an interesting hook, develops a middle section and comes to a sense of closure; compels readers to continue throughout.

❏ Offers showing-not-telling evidence to support all claims; helps us see and taste food and experience other aspects of the meal; uses no clichés.

❏ Shows few errors, if any, in the conventions of written English.

❏ Shows control of language to create a consistent voice from beginning to end.

❏ Shows flair, style, grace and/or pizzazz.

This review, although impressive, lacks the impact of a Parfait review. It does most or all of the following:

❏ Fairly but critically evaluates service, decor, food, and so forth; offers a developed, firm, convincing point of view.

❏ Develops a theme or tell a story related to the restaurant.

❏ Employs an interesting hook, develops a middle section and comes to a sense of closure; compels readers to continue throughout, although to a lesser degree than a better review.

❏ Offers showing-not-telling evidence to support claims; may slip into one or two clichés.

❏ Shows few errors, if any, in the conventions of written English.

❏ Shows control of language to create a consistent voice that flows smoothly from beginning to end.

❏ Shows some flair, style, grace and/or pizzazz.

This review reads more like a class project than a professional review. While adequately written, it lacks the impact of a better story. This review does most or all of the following:

❏ Shows observation and analysis of aspects of the restaurant and develops a point of view about those aspects.

❏ Indicates an awareness of the restaurant’s place in its neighborhood or genre; alternately, begins to develop a theme or tell a story but follow-through is flawed.

❏ Employs a hook, develops a middle and comes to some sense of closure, but readers’ motivation to continue wavers.

❏ Offers showing-not-telling evidence for most claims; might slip into clichés in places.

❏ May show more than a few errors in the conventions of written English.

❏ Has little spark.

This review doesn’t meet the requirements of the assignment. It not only reads like a class assignment but is flawed in several noticeable and significant ways. A review in this category:

❏ May demonstrate that the writer has observed and thought a little about some aspects of the restaurant and developed a point of view regarding some of those aspects.

❏ Indicates a vague awareness of the restaurant’s place in its neighborhood or among its peers.

❏ Shows only a semblance of a beginning, middle and end.

❏ Offers only marginally convincing evidence for some claims; tells rather than shows; might routinely offer clichés.

❏ Includes many errors in the conventions of written English.

❏ Spark? What’s that?