Today I would like to analyze a restaurant review. "Patois: When this Jamaican-Chinese-Canadian kitchen goes off-menu, good things happen."(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/food-and-wine/restaurant-reviews/patois-when-this-jamaican-chinese-canadian-kitchen-goes-off-menu-good-things-happen/article20578701/?cmpid=rss1)
Does the reviewer show any special "insider" knowledge of the chefs or the restaurants's plans for the future?
No, they didn't.
What is the writing style of the review?
It is easy to read because it is not so complex. It is like taliking.
Does the reviewer include a convenient grid?
No, they didn't.
What additional information can you find out about the restaurant from their website?
SNS service is useful. So, I thought SNS is good additional information.
Based on the review, would you and your partner like to try this restaurant?
Yes. It is easy to read, so I can imagine the atmospher. I want to go to the restaurant with my friends.
Next, I will analyze a video "Vegan Restaurant Review Sadie's Diner".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN09G0E5eV4
What is focused on in the review?
It is sadie's dinner.
How does it differ from the written review in presentation and content? What does have it have in common among these two?
I think the difference is that there are two people. We can know more information than one. Also, we can get other information and know menues.
Are chefs, owners, managers, or restaurant staff featured in the video?
No, they aren't.
What criticisms do you have of the video?
I want to focus on chefs. I think it is more interesting to focus on chefs because they have many knowledges about dishes.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿