I found this interesting discussion of the role of a critic and a reviewer. Based on their use of the terminology, I guess I am endeavoring to be a restaurant reviewer, rather than a critic - I have little formal training in food, and don't believe that this is important to producing articles of interest to other people who just want to hear about others experiences before deciding to spend their money at a particular establishment. I've always believed a passion in any topic (and therefore the motivation to research and explore a field on one's one) is of utmost value. Another thing the article talks about is the power of a negative review on a restaurant. I am actually a fan of scathing, sarcastic reviews - they're fun! - but I'm generally inclined to be more excited about a good restaurant discovery, and promoting something that I want to last. The bad ones, in the Vancouver market, should crumble soon enough all on their own.