dave esmond wrote: If the fresh looks finds the same thing why expect a different review?
And given you can't find the old reviews online why not do it again?
Not defending the review itself as I haven't read it but I don't see a problem with revisiting places from time to time. Even if all you find is that it's still the same.
I appreciate your sentiment, but I never suggested that we should expect a different review from a similar set of circumstances. I questioned the need to publish this review, period. And I agree, I think it's fine to revisit and review an established restaurant from time to time, but only if it's trying something new, and not just expanding its operations.
jjoyce wrote: Food aside, it's one of the highest-profile, successful local businesses. It's worthy of attention.
How do you figure? It's already "high-profile," it's already "successful;" why devote resources publishing a piece the details of which everyone knows? As for what should have run its place, Kyle has already shown himself quite adept at reviewing interesting foods and food-movements in his "Fringe Food" pieces. That's a good place to start.