How we research and review our food guides.

Who creates the guides?

The guides are published by The Great Kathmandu team. The restaurant was founded by Gopal and Jhunu Dangol and has been family-run on Burton Road since 1986. That experience gives us direct knowledge of our own restaurant, its menu and the way generations of Manchester diners ask about the food.

A restaurant team is not automatically the final authority on every community, region, plant or historical claim. We therefore treat first-hand restaurant knowledge and external research as two different kinds of evidence. Our byline identifies the publishing team, while the source notes show where readers can check wider claims for themselves.

What do we know first-hand?

We can speak directly about the dishes, descriptions, prices, portions and printed dietary or heat markers on The Great Kathmandu’s current menu. We can also describe our address, opening information, family history and the restaurant’s documented public story. When a guide discusses a house dish, the menu is cited as the primary restaurant source.

We do not disclose an ingredient, cooking step or dietary status merely because it is common elsewhere. If our published menu does not state a detail, the guide says so and encourages the reader to ask the team. This is especially important for allergies, cross-contact, recipe changes and dishes whose familiar name can cover many different preparations.

How do we research wider claims?

Food names travel across languages, borders and generations. A guide may need botanical evidence, food-science research, cultural documentation and historical context, not just a dictionary definition. We look for the strongest source suited to each claim and describe what that source actually supports.

For Nepalese culture and heritage, we prefer material from Nepalese public bodies, municipalities, universities and cultural organisations, with international institutions such as UNESCO or the Food and Agriculture Organization where relevant. For ingredients and processing, we favour botanical gardens, agricultural research bodies, food-science publications and official spice or commodity boards. For UK allergen practice, we use the Food Standards Agency.

Which sources do we prefer?

Our source order is practical rather than automatic. A current restaurant menu is best for a current restaurant price. A university food-science paper is better for fermentation or texture. A municipal heritage report may be more useful than a general encyclopaedia for a place-specific custom.

As a rule, we prioritise primary and institutional material, then peer-reviewed or specialist scholarship, then reputable reference works for narrow definitions. Dictionaries can explain a word, but they are not used alone to prove a dish’s complete history or method. Commercial recipe pages and unsourced list articles are not treated as decisive evidence.

How do we handle regional and cultural differences?

Nepalese and Indian food cultures are diverse, connected and continually changing. We avoid calling one restaurant version, one household recipe or one regional custom the only authentic form. When sources disagree, terminology varies or evidence is limited, the guide should state the boundary instead of hiding it.

Language is handled carefully too. A transliteration may have several English spellings; a menu term may be broader or narrower than its use in another place. The useful question is not simply “Which spelling is correct?” but “What does this source, menu or community mean here?”

How are menu and dietary claims checked?

Restaurant-specific statements are checked against the current dine-in menu before publication or review. Prices, portion sizes, heat labels and dietary markers are reproduced only when printed. An absent vegetarian, vegan or gluten-free marker is never treated as proof that a dish is unsuitable; it means the menu does not give that assurance.

Published guides are educational and cannot replace a direct allergy conversation. Recipes and suppliers can change, and cross-contact may matter even when an ingredient is not expected. Diners with allergies or strict dietary requirements should contact the restaurant before ordering and speak with the team on arrival.

How are guides reviewed and corrected?

Each guide shows a published date and a reviewed date. A review checks the menu claims, working links, source support, internal links, page metadata and structured data. The modification date supplied to search engines is updated when the page receives a meaningful content review.

If a public source moves, we replace the link with a working authoritative version where possible. If a claim cannot be supported precisely, we narrow or remove it. Readers can report a possible error at info@greatkathmandu.com; please include the guide URL and the sentence concerned so the team can review it efficiently.

Common questions

Are the guides written by an outside publisher?

No. They are published under The Great Kathmandu team byline and reviewed as part of the restaurant’s own guide library.

Does forty years in business prove every cultural claim?

No. It establishes first-hand restaurant experience. Wider cultural, historical and scientific claims still need appropriate external evidence.

Why do some sources describe a dish differently?

Recipes and meanings vary by place, language, community and household. Good sourcing can document that variation rather than erase it.

Can a guide guarantee allergy safety?

No. The current menu and direct conversation with the restaurant are the appropriate sources for an individual order.