Talk:Chuck-A-Rama
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Article states that Chuck-A-Rama is more known for the quantity of the food then the quality, is unbiased and states that the food is of poor quality at Chuck-A-Rama. While I agree that the food there is of not-so-great quality, Wikipedia is not the place for restaurant reviews. (Hypernick1980 08:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
- There are such things as unbiased standards. People grade restaurants. Critics rate movies. Humanities teachers grade papers. There's no need to flag this article as NPOV/POV if there's a general consensus in Utah that the food is subpar, though a source would be preferable. --mwazzap 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- A source to back up this assertion is not only preferable, it's necessary. I've removed the claim until a source can be found. TacoDeposit 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- The City Weekly, while a fine paper and an asset to the community, is not by any means a mainstream paper and definitely has an outspoken POV. Also in the article cited, there is only one reference to one couple eating in a competing restaurant who say that they don't like Chuck-a-rama. Many of the other people quoted in the article are in fact patrons of Chuck-a-rama. So the quality of this supporting reference is a little suspect. As to the quality of the food, it's okay and is just fine within the operating parameters of the restaurant. Can better food be found? Of course! Will the food at Chuck-a-rama make you sick? Not hardly. Think about this, you load up a plate but it tastes bad, so you don't eat it and keep getting plates until you find something you like. If most items were really bad, it would all get thrown away and the restaurant would go out of business. Instead, the fact is that the restaurant has prospered over the years and the quantity of items offered and the quality of these items has continuously improved. QED the quality is reasonable for the price ($8 dollars per lunch, $9 dinner).
