I'd like to recommend some places to eat in a couple of cities. When I have looked at the Eat section in some of the other guides they all seem to have more of a general overview of eating in that place rather than naming specific establishments - is it ok to do this or is it best just to stick to a more general theme?
I've worked on a few articles about small towns recently, and I've added in quite a few specific listings of restaurants and cafés to check out. I think it makes the article much more useful.
With big cities, I think the challenge is to not overload the article with listings. Ideally, it would be good to have articles about specific neighbourhoods within the city, and let those contain more exhaustive listings. As it stands though, there aren't too many cities where we actually have neighbourhood articles (off the top of my head I can only think of London and Melbourne).
At the moment, I'd suggest just adding them to the main city article. Once that main city article starts having more than ten or so listings, it's time to think about off-loading the listings into specific neighbourhood articles.
Does that make sense? I feel like it's all very confusing!
Thanks - that makes sense, and I agree that it's much more useful to have specific recommendations rather than just general/ background info.
No worries. I'll just add as well, about the more general bits... These are pretty useful to give people an idea about specific streets/neighbourhoods that are known for having a lot of great restaurants/cafés. I know Peter did that in the Melbourne article.
This is not to go against what I said before. Just saying that a combination of the general and specific is the ideal
When I put in some bits for the Montreal article, I had the same inner debate. In the end, though, I figured it's a Wiki between friends--so best to give my favourite restaurants around the city rather than stay too general. It may read a little like a restaurant review, but every word of it's the truth!
Glad to know I was on the right track!