User:AveryMcC/Brandy Melville/Vpritchard Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? AveryMcC
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AveryMcC/Brandy Melville
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
- 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? Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, introductory
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead in the edited page is concise and takes out the extra information which was then moved into sections which is a great edit.
Content
[edit]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? The number of locations in the top right box lists 95, but under "Current Operations and franchise" section it says there are 100 locations.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is relevant and it is good that you took the information from the Lead and sorted it into newly created categories. This helps to break the topic down and make it easier to understand and dissect.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The content added is neutral and informative. It mentions some viewpoints commonly recognized by the public. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a certain position.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The new content is provided with sources that are current and provide the background, history, and information of the company.
Organization
[edit]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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The content added is clear and informative and relevant to the topic. I think there are some sentences to be proof-read in the "Controversy" section to be edited for grammatical or spelling errors. The content added is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect significant points around the topic.
Images and Media
[edit]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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The article does not include images or media but potentially you could add an image of the store as there is a location in Seattle.
For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
New Article Evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]The content added has improved the overall quality of the article. The content has been sorted into sections that are easy to present information and facts. The strengths are the added content on the controversy of the company as that is relevant, as well as additional history and the current operations. Mentioning the current operations is relevant and important to the company and can change over time so it is good to include and inform people of this. The content can be improved by adding a photo if possible or including further information about the brand and operations.