Overall, it looks really well! I would agree with the point about the ratings, and would add that if you had five stars for everyone, with the rating illustrated by colouring in the appropriate number, it would also have the effect of aligning that block a little neater. For example, an unrated restaurant could have 5 grey stars, an averate rating would have 3 yellow and two gray, etc. I think that's a common enough convention these days, so it's unlikely to cause any confusion.

Also, the ratings list 'Value' twice: maybe they refer to two sorts of value, but it's certainly confusing to see Bunratty Manor Restaurant (for example) being given 3 stars for value, and 4 stars for value... which is it?!

There are a few instances of dodgy text characters popping up. I suspect that you're copying and pasting a lot of content in a different encoding. Perhaps try changing the Content-Type meta tag to utf-8 instead of iso-8859-1?

One last point -- if you look at the nutrition section, the first article is about calcium. There are several references to non-existent footnotes ([6], [12], etc) which does make it look like it was swiped from an uncredited source. A quick Google search shows it originated in Wikipedia, and from what I understand, you're perfectly entitled to reproduce text from their articles as long as you acknowledge the original article. I'm no lawyer, though, so someone else might want to weigh in on this one. However, the footnote references should probably be removed, as they don't serve any purpose on your site.

Hope this helps!