User:AveryMcC/User:AveryMcC/Brandy Melville/Lalevi 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?
  • User: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? 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? No, I'd start work on breaking this article up into major sections
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A little repetitive

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? Work on adding major sections
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, I like how it talks about the criticism on the "one size fits most" policy

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Most
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? "I" statements and phrases like "very very thin"
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It could be interesting to find the goal or purpose of the one size fits most policy from Brandy Melville's perspective
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? A little towards negative

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? Yes

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? Needs sections

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• 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? N/A
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
• 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? N/A
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

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? Good additions about brand and history
• How can the content added be improved? Provide more insight from the company's view