Why did you even bother with the piece "Green Plate Specials: Raters' favorite vegetarian-friendly spots" [Restaurants, April 8]? Thirty-four restaurants were reviewed, of which only 4 are actual vegetarian-only restaurants. Including those 4--which by definition don't have any nonvegetarian entrees to reference--only 6 of the 34 reviews confine themselves to describing the vegetarian possibilities available.
It was confusing, insulting, and a waste of time to wade through all those graphic descriptions of various meat dishes just to see what might actually be available for vegetarians, and even then not getting a clear answer in nearly half of the listings.
The reason this bothers me enough to write is that I've often noticed in the past that Chicago Reader listings at least make some effort to include vegetarian choices in the reviews; Chicago magazine, in contrast, doesn't list nonmeat offerings in the review section, even for restaurants known for extensive vegetarian offerings, such as Charlie Trotter's. I expect more from the Reader, so I'm more disappointed when you don't deliver.
The editors reply:
We compiled that list from restaurants--both solely vegetarian and not--that Reader Restaurant Raters have given high scores for vegetarian friendliness. In the blurbs for restaurants that also serve meat we tried to include vegetarian options.