User:CathStudies/Front of house/Cronacrab Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Cathstudies

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:CathStudies/Front of house
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Front of house

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I'm really impressed with how many sources you've managed to scrounge up-- especially for such an annoying topic to research for.
Don't refer to "front of house" as "FOH" in the article. It's too casual.
The BOH portion of the lead in your draft is too detailed for a subset of the article. Only a sentence or two is warranted in the lead. Consider moving it to the Back of house section.
Of the provided options for the lead, I prefer Intro #2. Should you perhaps move the article to "Front of house (theater)" in order to maintain focus on the focus of the class?
When you move your drafted content to mainspace, make sure to avoid using title case anywhere. Wikipedia doesn't use title case for article and section titles.
Make sure you source everything with an inline citation. Doing all the little things, like linking to articles at the first use of a topic that has an article is fine to leave for someone else, but citations are what make Wikipedia verifiable.
The "Terms and origin" section is sweet and to the point.
For the "Front of house design" section, make sure to avoid "fluff"-sounding language, such as "plays a critical role", even if supported by sources. Replace with more even-handed phrases, such as "is important" or "attempts to".
In this section, you mention "Innovative solutions and strategic planning". Do you have any examples to include in the article? I think it would be an interesting inclusion.
The "Back of house design" section is excellently written.
Regarding the "Operations, roles, & responsibilities" section, I very much prefer the middle option. It does a good job describing what the front of house and back of house employees do. I'd recommend not including the sentence "Overall, effective coordination between FOH and BOH personnel is essential for delivering seamless customer experiences and maintaining operational efficiency in any venue or establishment." It sounds like you're trying to sell me on house employees!
Do the front of house and back of house employees ever interact?
Drop the two sources that are already in the live article. Neither is worth trying to keep.
I really like the picture that's included in the live article. It's a pretty and relevant photo.
Overall, your draft is on its way to changing the Front of house article from a stub to a useful source of information on this topic!