User:Accordian-Orangejuice/REI/NorthShoreLife Peer Review

General info
Accordian-Orangejuice
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Accordian-Orangejuice/REI
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * REI

Evaluate the drafted changes
The written article remains highly relevant throughout, focusing on REI's commitment to sustainability, specifically reducing carbon footprints and waste. The article progresses from past initiatives and achievements to future goals, which makes the flow of the article cohesive.

One area for improvement would be to better include other points of view. The article predominantly focuses on portraying REI's initiatives in a positive light, while seemingly avoiding criticism or problems within those initiatives. I think perhaps if you discussed more how impactful these initiatives really are in terms of the level of effort the company puts in, it would help solve any bias problems. In discussing some of the challenges or opposition to the initiatives, the article would provide more of a nuanced view of REI's sustainability programs and give information rather than persuade.

Furthermore, while the article does a good job of expressing REI's viewpoints and stances, I think there should be more external sources pertaining to professional opinions and specific to the science behind the initiatives and how effective they are or will be. This would allow article readers to more accurately draw conclusions based on the validity of the initiatives. I understand this is a rough draft, but there should be a lot more citations within the paper.

There is a plethora of data included in the article that is not directly cited, whether it comes from one of the two listed sources you have or not. In this sense, I think it would be beneficial to focus on collecting solid external sources, which would allow you to not only increase article validity but would also allow you to re-organize your information, which would clear up some of these citation issues.

The sources you do use seem to be helpful for your article; however, only using your company's corporate website as a source increases the potential for "greenwashing" and manipulated information. The sites you use provide solid quantitative data surrounding sustainability plans and goals, but you definitely need more sources pertaining to the actual science. Going forward, it's crucial to verify credibility and analyze any biases present on the sites where you are collecting information.

Structurally, the article organization is relatively sound, but I think it will require revisions when more sources and information are included. Grammatically, the article is consistent and well written. In summary, the biggest challenges with the article relate to the lack of sources, and credible sources at that. By focusing on including scientific sources, the article will be less biased and more credible, which is what Wiki is So far, you have done a great job of discussing the company's viewpoints which can be important, but not when the whole article consists of information from your company's website.

My last recommendation, would be to use subheaders to split your article into two sections. You can play around with the structure of these sub sections, whether it be two paragraphs, one relating to the initiatives and another relating to the science behind these implantations, or doing one paragraph on past initiatives and another on future goals.

The included sources links are all working.