Comments on the Final Three Reviewers
from week 13 reviews of the Brown Pelican

Salmon - Rita's okay, but Salmon is funny, and no one really cares what anyone else thinks about the food, anyway.

Rita - I thought this was a food review, hence not voting for Salmon. I really would have liked to know more about the sturgeon other than the blanket comment that it "was good." Plus, scientific names are italicized, or if you can't use italics (because you're handwriting it, for example), underlined. Sorry, this is what happens when I take a semester-long class on scientific nomenclature. George either had too many inside comments or some typos - I've still not figured out which - but his writing confused me at times. The same rule of italics applies to George's use of the scientific name for the pelican and the species/specific name was misspelled on top of that. Rita wins for providing information I can use, like names and numbers. I also liked that she's been eating there for years and seen the evolution of the site. And, thank the lord, none of this Señorita stuff!

Rita - What's with Salmon; I lost my desire to read his review after the first paragraph. He didn't do the Brown Pelican a favor by talking about the pollution ---I thought this was a restaurant review!! Rita hit all the points of the review, and George also did a good review.

Rita - She writes much better than the other two.

Rita - consistent personality comes out in Rita's reviews and she addresses the things that matter PRICE, atmosphere, SERVICE, and what the stuff tasts like!

Rita - At least she talked about the food and didn't just whine and complain about service or ambiance.

Salmon - As usual witty and entertaining.

Rita - Even though Her review of the BP was off, Rita's the clear choice. Fun, Percecptive and of the bunch, the one I'd most likely believe.

Salmon - Go to love the fecal references in the review....yummyyyyy

Salmon - Fecal contamination + food = interesting topic.

Salmon - Getting bored of the other critics trying to ape Salmon's style. There just isn't anything distinctive to any of the others. I can look forward to at least some meager entertainment from the pink bellied fish as opposed to endless banalities from the others.

Rita - She paid attention to the restaurant and the meal she was reviewing, not the tidal stew next to her or the beach-bunnies. Food is #1 for a reviewer!

Rita - My last lunch at the Brown Pelican was surprisingly delicious and, yes, shockingly expensive. I have found Rita's reviews to be more in tune with my take on a restaurant than those of the two remaining contestants. Plus, they're witty and fun to read.

George - You tell 'em George. Yup, I've been at the Pelican twice now and both times they were understaffed. And, while the ambiance outside is unbeatable, the second time I was there a seagull actually stole my eggs right off my plate.

George - George's dry wit causes me to have to contain the laughter from my 3 x 4 cubie.

Salmon - My thoughts exactly.

George - Salmon seems more occupied by his cocktails than the food, and his review was as pungent as his discription of the creek. Rita's review was her best so far, but I think George's review was the best of the bunch with a very good description of some rather run of the mill food.

George - Only because he agrees with me about the Brown Pelican, over priced and SMALL portions. Why do people eat there?!

Salmon - George: Why take digs at Gene Kelly? That's not cool, man.

Rita - I have not, sadly been keeping up with the lunch review contest. But this week's upchucking discussion of fecal matter was a bit much for the one review! And sorry, though George might be a clever writer, he lost my vote when he so sharply critiqued one of my favorite feathered friends AND picked apart one of my favorite Sunday morning breakfast spots - all in one fell swoop! Poor guy - what a silly position for me to take to vote him down! (I actually prefer "lunch with a man" rather than "lunch with a woman" - but that may be just me! But I am still giving this week's vote to Rita.

George - George is a fantastic writer!

George - It's clear that George has a lot of fun writing these reviews. And he's definitely on target with his assessment of this week's (and last week's) restaurants. Plus I had to stop reading Salmon's review after the phrase "raw fecal bacteria"--yick!

Rita - I like her sense of humor.

Rita - She gets the nod for actually reviewing the restaurant without the social commentary.

George - I like his style.

Rita - She's just a much better writer, and stays on the subject. Plus you actually find out more about the dining experience overall-food-atmosphere-cost-service.

Rita - "There's something discerning" -- uh, perhaps Salmon meant "disconcerting"? A piece that starts with a vocabulary error turns me off, no matter how good the rest of it is. And George is very clever, but I've got to go with Rita for high information content.

Rita - George reminds me of a Faulkner novel -- perhaps interesting reading, but I'm here to find out about the food. Salmon is better -- but again -- tell me about the food, and occasionally praise something (please). Rita is best!

Salmon - I enjoy Salmon's dry sense of humour and his always-colorful lunch guests.

Salmon - The tourists haven't discovered the Brown Pelican? I thought *only* tourists eat there. That reminds me of the comments Rita made about the new fish & chips at Bogarts (that weren't). She is just off base too much. I can't really understand what George is talking about. But, Salmon. He is funny and fun to read.

George - Very descriptive; George cracks me up every time!

Rita - Salmon is too gross and off the subject, while George has too many grammatical errors and is too negative. As usual, Rita is fresh, entertaining and actually gets specific and helpful about the food, which is the POINT!

George - clever fellow, feel like I've had dinner with him many times.

Rita - I didn't think any of this week's reviews were especially good, but Salmon's opening line was so nonsensical I had to comment on it. What is the meaning of "There's something discerning in the knowledge"?! Sounds like he needs to use a dictionary instead of a thesaurus. Rita's opening sentence was tasteless, but at least she did provide some decent food descriptions in the review, which is what I look for above all in a restaurant review (unlike Salmon's fans, who seem to think restaurant reviews should be 99% personal anecdotes).

Rita - Finally in this 13th week, Rita stands out. She did such a wonderful review, not just because she liked the food, but because, it was so descriptive and I love wine and she included prices not just scenery and ambience!

Rita - Rita is by far the best reviewer. She gives much more information about the food than the other two. George and Salmon try too hard to be clever and witty, but also try too hard to be critical. Rita is naturally witty, but not contrived. I like her reviews. She is willing to offer a balance of praise along with the criticism - she seems more authentic and upbeat, as well as fair.

Rita - Rita gave a far superior assessment of the Brown Pelican and its offerings. The restaurant, as opposed to her surroundings, was her main objective in her critique and I think she wrote effectively and with the usual humor that makes me want to keep reading. Great job Rita!

Rita - Salmon told me a little more about effluence than I wanted to read in a restaurant review. George rightfully and humorously wrote about the long wait to get food. Is a long wait ever justified, even if the food that finally arrives is fabulous? Perhaps on rare occasion, but how long does it really take to make a lobster taco? Rita, though, combined the best review with her very funny one-liners.

Rita - I liked her descriptions of the food. George didn't spend enough time talking about it, and Salmon, well, I couldn't get past his incorrect use of the word "discerning"--I think he meant to say "disconcerting", which indeed all his talk about contamination and E. coli proved to be while reading.

Rita - I don't know why Rita was so enthusiastic while the other guys were negative; but anyone who gets a good parking spot at this place gets my vote.

Rita - Rita gives more info related to the task and less about personal travails. Salmon and George need to be less enamored with themselves and more into the job of evaluating the restaraunt and food.

George - George rocks!!! (This is not to imply that Salmon and Rita don't rock, but George rocks more. Grammatically speaking, he rocks the most. And besides, the others have names that remind one of food. For example, Rita rhymes with "pita," and Salmon rhymes with "salmon." Actually, that's not much of a stretch if you ask me. It's like reading a review by someone named Gorgonzola. Right away, you're thinking of food, so even if the review is bad, you're thinking of food and already have an interest in eating somewhere. Come on, Salmon. Be creative! Well, ok, Salmon's review was creative. But come on, Salmon, be creativer!)

Rita - This is the first time I've given Rita my first-place vote. I think she did the best job with this assignment.

George - Not his best, but I'm chalking it up to his poor Pelican experience.

Salmon - I like Salmon the best, but Rita is a very close second!

Salmon - They remind me of Beaver Cleaver and Larry Costello (Salmon & Manta) all grown up "Well almost grown". Not to mention the occaisional cameo from Whitey (Rooster). Good review, I even felt a waft of coastal breeze now and then.

Salmon - It was really close, and I enjoyed all 3 reviewers this time. Rita did give me more of an idea about the food itself, which was sort of the point, I think, but Salmon is always entertaining. George is too, but perhaps a bit too ascerbic, though I enjoy his stuff too. Maybe we can keep all three?