User:AveryMcC/Brandy Melville/Emmaaitelli Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? AveryMcC
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AveryMcC/Brandy Melville

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No but it seems like that segment was accurate/up to date
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A there's only one other section
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it's concise

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think that the first segment could be divided so there's an additional section about the 'one size fits all' controversy instead of grouping it in with the rest of the history/background info
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? No a lot of them say missing information (I had this problem too at first and sometimes I would have to try different links or make sure they loaded all the way before pasting them into the references)

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? Highlights a lot of the controversy that has recently surrounded the company as well as goes into more depth with the history.
• How can the content added be improved? Better/more organization