User:AveryMcC/Brandy Melville/Marisajones 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? 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? The lead is good but it is repetitive to the content added by my peer.
 * 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? It does not touch on the one size fits all aspect of the company.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise and well written.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content added is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does- it addresses the idea that Brandy Melville excludes the majority of women with their one size fits all approach.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No the content added is not entirely neutral, the author adds in anecdotes about her life and her own thoughts on the matter.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes the author claimed to have shopped at Brandy as a young teen as that is their target audience.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint of one size fits small is over represented. As well, the background of the store's history is also overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think it could persuade the readers to be against Brandy Melville because of their one size fits all policy.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is all backed up by reliable sources, except for the parts that include opinions.
 * 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- they do not include historically marginalized individuals from what I can see though.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes- it seems that there is something missing on them though.

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? I think the content added could be organized better due to the fact that there is repetition in the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * 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?
 * 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? Yes I believe it improved the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the strengths of the content added was getting a deeper understanding of the one size fits all policy and the history of the company.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the content can be improved if it is all condensed so the article doesn't repeat topics, as well if opinions are taken out and it is made more neutral.