I was reading a paper left in the train this evening. It had a restaurant review in it. The reviewer said that his steak tartare tasted of nothing but pepper. If that were the case, I’d have sent it back; the reviewer seemed to have not done so. Everyone makes mistakes. Would the review have been enhanced by giving the chef the chance to rectifiy his mistake?
I think that really defeats the purpose of the whole thing. Readers don’t want to know what restaurants can be good if you order, get something that tastes like crap, send it back, and then get something that tastes fine. Most people prefer their dining to be more consistent and predicable than that. It isn’t a contest to see what the staff can do given sufficient motivation and complaints.
I would expect that most folks who read a restaurant review are looking for the best restaurants, not the best places to return a poorly prepared meal.
I would also hope that the reviewer would go several times, so that one bad day for the chef doesn’t skew the response. Of course, if the chef had several “bad days,” then I would start to question the overall quality of the place.
Having to wait for another order really puts a damper on the dining experience. In other words, it fucking sucks. It’s bad enough that they screwed it up in the first place, and even worse that you have to wait for them to make it again (sometimes just as long as you waited for the first order.)
I think they go to a restaurant more than once before they write the review. They always talk about a variety of dishes that they’ve had or their guest had.
It’s not like steak tartare takes a long time to cook. 
I know what you mean - everyone else is enjoying their food while you;re sitting there staring at an empty space on the table where your plate is supposed to be.
As for how many visits a critic will make, the San Francisco Chronicle, for one example, makes at least three visits before writing a “feature” review. (As compared to the “quick bite” reviews that are just a single paragraph blurb, and probably the result of just one visit.)
When I worked as a reporter for a small Ohio newspaper almost 20 years ago, each of us would take turns writing restaurant reviews. (The paper was too small to have a fulltime restaurant reviewer). As you can imagine, there was a wide variety of tastes and of writing styles brought to bear, so I’m afraid our reviews were none too consistent. The newspaper would pick up the tab for you and three guests,* so you could order a variety of dishes, but you’d only make a single visit. One of my reviews drew the ire of a restaurant owner, but the chief editor backed me up, bless him.
I would never send food back while “on duty” unless it was absolutely inedible. Your review is meant to be a guide (either a warning or a recommendation) to prospective diners. They’re not going to want to have send food back - they’re going to want to know what to expect when they visit that restaurant, for better or for worse.
*In all my reviews my best line was, I confess, suggested by one of my (or, rather, the paper’s) dinner guests. He got a shrimp scampi that came with only four shrimp and dubbed it, in disgust, a “skimpy scampi.” 