User:Acorn With a Notebook/Sustainable fashion/Marcplummer82 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Acorn With a Notebook)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Sustainable fashion


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sustainable fashion

Evaluate the drafted changes
After reading the Sustainable fashion article I do no think the lead has new added content from my peer for what I see. I think the lead does concisely describe the articles topic but does briefly include description of its major sections and could use more detail. Thus, I think the lead is overall concise but lead into describing more of the sections since there are so many. After reading, I did not see any new content added by my peer. Although, that all the content added is up to date. I think that the content they're no content missing. Yes, the content does address topics that is related to historically unrepresented populations regarding the people of Asia and how they are largest exporter of fast fashion. Yes, I think the content is biased towards how sustainable fashion is more beneficial than the slow fashion and fast fashion. Which it slightly persuades the reader on why you should lean towards buying sustainable fashion. Furthermore, I do think the viewpoints still is very detailed when it comes to defining what slow and fast fashion is, to show different types of fashion. Yes, all the content is backed up by a secondary source. Yes, the sources are current and does also does have a diverse spectrum of authors. I will say I am very surprised to see that there is almost over 300 sources that are listed. Moreover, majority of the sources are organizations and different clothing brands. I think the article is concise, well written, easy to read and is well organized. I would say that the images fairly simple would I think there are better images that could be used to represent the information. I did notice that one image does not have a description but the rest do. My overall impression of this article is well written and is well organized. I think what could be improved on is adding a little more detail when the content is being described and adding better/more images.