An intro to my food reviews...

Hey! Okay, so here's me trying to talk about food. This blog is devoted to food in all forms - homemade, restaurant, recipes, discussion of ingredients, etc. I'll post up pictures as I get them!

Hoanna Wang... it's a bit of a joke. It's nicknames two of my good friends (who are also the most gourmand-ish people I know) have. I'd throw in Elvin as well, for the other person I know who has the knowledge of all 4 Japanese Iron Chefs (the American ones don't count at all in my opinion) and more.

So, in order to understand my restaurant reviews, the breakdown of points is given as such (with some possible further tweaks in criteria):

Food quality: /50 - this is determined by how the meal itself tastes, and whether it satisfies the appetite for the purpose it intends. The meal will often be divided into components which are each assigned points by me arbitrarily, but the following rules will be included:

• Mains are accorded more weight than other dishes (except perhaps dessert).
• All items which might be considered a separate food item will be considered as separate elements to be evaluated.
• Quality will not solely be determined by taste and quantity. Other things to be considered will include potential after-effects I feel, or sometimes how the the dishes match up to one another (this might have even more added weight if a server recommends particular pairings)
  

Food presentation: /10 - basically, if special effort has been taken to improve the look of the food, that will merit further points. If it has an is presented in what I feel is an acceptable manner, it will make a passing to half-decent grade. Basically, the more artistic or appetizing it looks, the better the presentation mark is.

Price level: /20 - I think this may be where people find my reviews most controversial. However, I think it is warranted to grade the full potential of a restaurant. No matter how great presentation and taste may be, if it really is exorbitant for price level, it won't rate as one of my best restaurants, since the price in itself has a major effect on the experience. What needs to be noted, though, is that not all restaurants are judged according to the same standard - restaurants with higher decor and food requiring more preparation will have a "reasonable" standard of a price higher than, say, a McDonald's clone. Granted, this is a *very* subjective part of the evaluation, but I feel it is important. As it is, the whole idea of evaluating restaurants is subjective, so...

One thing to note is that special restaurants with high prices will not necessarily get super-penalized. The overall experiences at them may translate into bonus points that I award at my discretion. Likewise, if the price is high and the restaurant a real disappointment as well, then it might get a penalty subtraction.

Service: /10 - for me, if a staff takes my orders, delivers food and processes things in an efficient manner, it generally will get a 7 for service. Knowledge of the menu, disposition, time waiting for service-related items, and other possible variables can help to add or subtract to that base score. To this, bonuses can be added overall if the service really contributes to other components and makes for a richer experience, or penalties if it really becomes the key hindrance. However relatively small this component is, it actually is the trickiest balancing act of how to be efficient and unintrusive, but helpful and memorable.

Decor: /10 - for this, all restaurants will be judged along the same standard of a 10 being a clean, open atmosphere that may or may not be intimate, that has elements that add a good degree of comfort, that minimizes all distractions to potentially enjoying food, and perhaps adding elements that contribute to a positive experience.

Bonuses/penalties: this is the most subjective area but I think it's important to have this section, in order to either reward a restaurant for really providing a great experience in sum, or somehow having so many deficiencies that I can't help but feel that the deficiencies ruined other components in addition.

Overall, the grade is /100 and I think it will be a maximum of 100, minimum of 0 even with the extra bonus/penalty considerations.

In terms of a grading scheme, one has to keep in mind that when I was a TA, I was probably one of the hardest graders my professor has ever had. That being said, if one wants to give them grade lettering, it also doesn't follow a US scale, but I'd think the UBC standard is a good application:

A+ - 90%+
A - 85-99%
A- - 80-84%
B+ - 76-79%
B - 72-75%
B- - 68-71%
C+ - 64-67%
C - 60-63%
C- - 56-59%
D - 50-55%
F - 49%-

Generally, an average restaurant will get a C under my ratings. A good restaurant will get a B, and it takes some very special things to get above an A- .

Hopefully, when I manage to post up reviews, you'll see what I'm talking about.

I hope this will be entertaining to those who like food!