User:Catbear7776/Environmental impact of fashion/Barred.owl.24 Peer Review

General info
Catbear7776
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Catbear7776/Environmental impact of fashion
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Environmental impact of fashion

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Catbear7776! I found the article you chose to review and edit to be very interesting. I figured that old clothes and the production of clothing had negative impacts on the environment, but I never knew all of the different ways that it hurt the environment. I also liked that you were able to add quite a bit to the original article.

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content, slow fashion, that was added. There was some additional content added to the fast fashion part of the lead. Overall, the rest of the lead sounds good. Just remember to include something about the slow fashion section that you added.

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?

The content added is relevant to the topic. Originally there was just a section on fast fashion, but nothing about the opposite of that, slow fashion, which was added. In addition to added content in fast fashion there was content added to the production and disposal of waste, eutrophication, and sustainability efforts sections. The content added to the main body of the article is up to date with what is going on in the environmental impact of fashion. I did not find any content that was not pertinent to the topic.

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 overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

All of the content added to the sections was written in a neutral tone and claims were written in an unbiased and unfavored way. Originally, slow fashion was not represented at all, but I liked that you had the idea of adding that section since it is relevant.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?


 * Are the sources current?


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, all of the new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources that reflect the added content discussed in the article. Some sources, however, are not as current but I still think they are proficient in reliable information. All of the added links work and I think the sources are suitable. None of the sources were news articles or less reliable sources. I do think that It would be good to add some citations to the unsourced sentences.

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?

The content added is well written, detailed, and easy to follow and understand. I only found one grammatical error in fast fashion, which was that traditional was misspelled, but other than that everything else that was added is spelled correctly. All of the content added was placed into the correct corresponding sections.

Overall impressions/Analysis of Goals

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The content added improved the quality of the article in that it provided further explanation of some concepts. The additional references added also improved the reliability of the content in the article. All of the goals that were made were achieved and detailed on how they were achieved. I think the goals that were created were sufficient in some aspects of improving the article. The only thing that I might add is a goal to add citations to unsourced information. I think that this would further improve the article and make sure that no false information is being presented. I also think that some of the shorter sections like animal fibers and textiles, marine impact, and water use for example could be lengthened a bit, but overall, I think the article looks good in length and in detailed content. I really like that you noticed that a section clearly needed added. There were only a couple of things that need changed or added.