User:Wiki Editor Sydney/Alta Gracia Apparel/Kgrasso 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

• Wiki Editor Sydney
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Wiki Editor Sydney/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation

The lead does describe the article well and does a good job of giving a brief summary of what the article is about.

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?

Content evaluation

The content on the sandbox is relevant to the topic and seems to update the article as a whole. There are some pieces of information that I have questions on that I feel could be added to, but there is nothing that stands out as missing or being misplaced.

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 over represented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content is mostly neutral. There are some spots where it is possible the author is biased towards the brand like when they say "The brand has a fun, vibrant energy." It doesn't stick out as being overly positive towards the brand, but it is more of an opinion than a fact. There is not any information of any opposing side, however the article feels complete without this. The content doesn't try to persuade the reader. The article feels solely informative about the topic it is on.

Sources and References

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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

All the sources are fairly recent. They all seem to be from reliable sources and the links work when they are clicked on.

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?

Organization evaluation

The information is very clear and easy to read. There are times when the article repeats itself, but not so much that it feels unnatural. The content is organised well.

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?

Images and media evaluation

No images on this page.

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?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

The content does seem to improve the article. It feels very informative on the topic and I feel as though I know more about the topic. The new content is very clear and to the point. It is easy to understand and comprehend. It also feel much more up to date. At some points there felt there seemed to be some bias (see tone and balance), but overall, the article seemed neutral.

As for how the article can be improved I wrote down some questions I had while reading the article.

• How much are these workers getting paid and how much is that compared to what those around them are making? - Where are these factories?
• What Universities are they getting contacts from? Does this mean that they are getting paid by these Universities?
• What investor pulled? Do we know why?
• How are there promises of being profitable holding up? And, how un-profitable are they? Are they making any money at all or are they just losing it?