Talk:Chuck-A-Rama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] POV

  • 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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.76.8 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 3 November 2006

[edit] POV rebuttal

I'm Floodbud, and I have eaten at Chuck-a-rama a few times. All times I found that the food, though possibly diluted a bit, was good and did not cause me stomach problems or food poisoning. You must realize that quality is relative, and to say for any reason that the quality of a restaurant is sub-standard is a major insult. I do not have any special connections to Chuck-a-rama but I believe that food quality is perceived rather than absolute. Therefore, I propose a new statement, which I will put in the article:

The food is generally considered to be "not as good" as much more expensive restaurants, but meets health and quality standards, and by no means is lacking in taste. Though some products (such as the soup and rice) seem to be diluted more than in other restaurants, this is made up for by the all-you-can-eat policy.

If you find a flaw in this statement, please let me know. I am just chagrined that Wikipedia should contain an article stating any product to be low quality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Floodbud (talk • contribs) 17:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

You were right to remove the old assertion, which was an uncited attack, like the editors above noted two years ago. However, your addition appears to be original research. Neither belongs in the article. Cool Hand Luke 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that original research part, but I'm inexperienced so I will agree to the final result. floodbud ...my talk page