There does seem to be some ruckus attending Sifton, as a service to the patrons in the hotel housing Imperial No. 9, putting the name and address of a competing restaurant at the tail end of his review. I support the decision. Sifton did well to put it, and Wells did right to keep it. It's a critic's job to steer readers toward good restaurants/books/movies, and away from bad ones, right? If you walked into a record store asking for Guadacanal Diary, would it not be reasonable for the clerk to suggest REM instead? If you suggested an activity that did not involve drinking Narragansett Summer Ale, would it not be incumbent upon your friend to suggest amending the croquet match/trip to the beach/deposition/funeral to include the consumption of Narragansett Summer Ale? Seriously, folks, this stuff is the 'Gansett you know and love, but, like 1/4 Dale's Pale Ale on its mom's side.
To return, the folks who have a right to a beef w/ Sifton are the guests of the Mondrian Hotel. Including the Asia De Cuba address in the review is like saying to Mondrian patrons "Hey, the restaurant that is basically a Chuck E. Cheese for trophy wives in your sucks! But since that's what you want, here's how to get to a better Chuck E. Cheese for trophy wives! Have fun in the city! Did you get Lion King tickets?" Considering that Sifton knows at least 50 restaurants he actually likes, it's as if he thinks the people who stay at the Mondrian use Yahoo! personals.