What's in a star?
An Eats commenter, Planostarsfan, posed an interesting question in response to The Back Story: Stephan Pyles.
"I find it curious," he writes, "that restaurants like Wolfgang's and Pyle's received 4 stars (appropriate in my opinion) and a restaurant in Plano JS Chen's also received 4? While I'm a regular at Chen's and do enjoy it, I don't think it compares to the quality of the aforementioned restaurants. Moreover, the ambience at Chen's in my opinion has no comparison to the other two. That's not a criticism of Chens just my observation. Surely, this must have an impact when you think hard on what star rating you intend to give? If so, it almost seems to me that it could be construed that Chen's is an overall better restaurant than the other two. But I would have a hard time getting anyone who has eaten at all three to agree with that. Plainly stated the visual experience at Chen's is no where near the quality of Three-Sixty and Pyles and to me that impacts the review."
Thank you, Planostarsfan, for the provocative question.
This whole business about star ratings, is not an easy calculus. Yes, atmosphere definitely comes into determining a rating. But so does value. So does a wine list, which J.S. Chen's Dimsum and BBQ does not have. On the other hand, there is a value on being able to bring one's own wine. (Not an equal value to having a good wine list, but a value nevertheless.) The difficulty comes when a restaurant is turning out excellent cooking that's very involved at a price that's a very good value, as at J.S. Chen's, which also has an attractive enough setting, and, the times I visited, very good service. Have you ever made Chinese dumplings or Peking duck? There's real technique required -- much more so than in grilling a steak, yet no one bats an eyelash when a steakhouse gets four stars.
In terms of star ratings, there's not an easy slot for a restaurant like J.S. Chen's. Yet sometimes a place rises above the level of the vast sea of 3-star restaurants.
Complicating the issue is the fact that we don't use half stars at the Dallas Morning News anymore. I completely agree with the decision to drop them -- while half-stars allow you to be more precise, using them often feels like splitting hairs. Because we don't use them, there's a much wider range within each star rating. There are high fours and low fours, high threes and low threes. How do you know which it is? Best is to focus on the text -- that's where I have the space and opportunity to convey my impressions and develop a critique.
It's also important to remember that quality at a restaurant is not necessarily a constant. My visits to a restaurant represent a snapshot in time. After a review is published, a restaurant that was heavily criticized might improve. In that case, you might go to a restaurant to which I gave a two-star rating, and the management might by that time have addressed some issues I criticized (I do try to be constructive), and you might wind up thinking it deserved a three. Was I too strict, or did the place improve? Who knows? On the other hand, there might be a small, family-run restaurant that gets a four-star rating and is overwhelmed by business and has trouble keeping the quality up. That can happen too.
I hope that clarifies things a bit about this sticky matter of stars.