I realize the title sounds pretty weird, but I'm looking for some inspiration here. Just recently (earlier today, in fact), I was hired to write restaurant reviews for a local newspaper on a periodic basis. I've already got some pretty good ideas, but there's always more to be done when it comes to being well-prepared!
I feel like I'll be able to write well enough, but this is the first time I've ever had a job that isn't rolling burritos, and I would like to do a good job. I'll be interviewing owners of each establishment, as well as commenting on the food. I know hubski has a population of professional writers, and people who are just good at writing, and I'd appreciate any general advice you could give me.
What sorts of things make you want to visit a restaurant? If you were me, what sort of questions would you ask?
I'm not a writer, but I like food and read reviews. There are a lot of restaurant choices in my town, even within a given niche. My thing is weekend breakfasts, and there are many excellent choices. I try to go to a new place from time to time but have a few I regularly return to. So what sets them apart? They all have food that tastes good. For me it's the comfort. That means friendliness of the employees, comfort of the waiting area (is it an entryway or is it open and out of the way) and comfort at my seat. So what I like to see in a review is a comment on how streamlined it is. Is it self seating with a mob by the door stalking people about to get up, or is there a smooth process for them to take your name and a comfortable area out of the way to wait? The staff can make or break a restaurant for me. When talking to the owners, maybe ask them to discuss their staff. If the owner proudly talks about the wonderful people working for them, that's a good sign. Food matters, of course, but it's everything else that makes a place stand out for me.
This may be too simple, but literally 2 things: honesty and that the reviewer is reasonable. If you go to mcdonalds and they don't have Dom and that pisses you off, you're a worthless reviewer. I just read a review where a guy said that a bar was a "black or white place" and that he went with a couple of white friends and his food took too long, so they canceled it because they saw the black cook outside. I took my white ass and my friend's even whiter ass to the same bar to see staff of mixed ethnic backgrounds and my food came out just fine... Some people are just kind of... Idiots. If you have expectations that are in line with the place you're going to (floors can be sticky at a dive, maybe not so much at a fine French restaurant, ketchup is a fine sauce at a shitty burger place, not so much at a nice Italian place), and you talk about them and how they were met, I'm fine with your review whether I agree or not.
The one thing I dislike about a lot of online reviews for food, film, video games, what have you: words like "the experience was awesome," "you'll love being here," "top notch service" "food was to die for." Such writing says nothing. What's awesome for one may be not awesome for another; it's also why I loathe any commercial or ad I see that includes the words "for people just like you." Seriously? Don't you know I'm a special snowflake? I prefer reviews instead that go past generic platitudes, and actually DESCRIBE. Show the details, not the labels. Only other relevant thing I can think of: the only food reviewer I remember the name of, and remember fondly, is Paul Reidinger. I loved his reviews.
Disclaimer: not a writer or anything. If you can afford to, make multiple visits - and only comment on the staff's behavior after multiple visits. Otherwise, I look for comments on the food - if they used too much or too little seasoning, how well was it cooked, and if their meal is different (like for instance - a restaurant I went to served their burgers with cucumbers in it - it was amazing), how well do the differences complement the meals. Knowing about the general mood and atmosphere of the place is also nice (if it's a restaurant that focuses on table eating - commenting on the atmosphere of a take-out place is not really useful. There's exceptions of course - ALWAYS let people know if a place is sketchy. That's all I can think about right now, so that's my two cents. Might come back later.
I like to know the customer the restaurant is catering to because it gives you an idea of how authentic a restaurant is. For example, if you read An Economist Gets Lunch, Cowen writes about getting Pakistani/Indian food in Edision, NJ, which has a large population of each group of people. The Pakistani restaurants in the area served more traditional food because their customers were also Pakistani, and expected a more authentic meal. I think it's important to talk about who the target customer is, just as much as it is to talk about how the food was because it can really give the reader a sense of the authenticity of the restaurant. And of course, have fun! The best articles I ever wrote (not about food though) were the ones I enjoyed working on, and it definitely showed.
Other people have brought this up, and I agree: Have realistic expectations about where you're going, and bring them to the review. My favourite places to go are diners - if they're the sort where you "come for the food, stay for the abuse", so much the better - and they will often sling some AMAZING food, but their atmosphere can often leave something to be desired for some people, and some people find the menu a bit... stale? overdone? These places could often suffer from a mediocre review when, for their audience, they are gems. Another thing I could suggest is, at the end of your review, pick out 5-7 words, separate or a sentence, to describe your experience, then (if you liked it), pick a dish you recommend. congrats on the gig!