User:Daisydaily24/Birkenstock/Cedarwood79 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

DISCLAIMER: I had to redo my peer review of this article due to not following this format. I apologize for giving you extra advice, but I hope my more comprehensive review helps!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Daisydaily24
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Birkenstock

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead section could improve by being more general about the information. The last two sentences of that part are not necessary and doesn't add anything to the intro. I would even remove the third-to-last sentence and speak about how they have lasted into the present day in both Germany and abroad.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It would be better to speak about Birkenstock being a shoe produced by (insert company's name). Then it is possible to briefly state the content of the shoe and its acclaim.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The introduction is promising, but working on the statement above will help make the lead even stronger and more relevant.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is no information in the lead that is not included in the article itself.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is not overly detailed, but it could be more concise. The lead doesn't have to be long, but it should at least be an effective lead-up to the content of the material. Think as if you were writing a research paper and the teacher wanted your to be short yet effective.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic and gives a glimpse on the shoe itself.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All of the resources were published within 10 years ago, so all of the information is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content is interesting, but maybe speak more about the critical reception from Germans, Americans, and from other countries if possible. In other words, how did they perceive the shoe? Cover the praise, criticism, and potentially controversy. Also, it would be interesting to cover pop culture references, which could mention the VSCO girls, celebs that have worn the shoe, and in certain phrases.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? There are still terms like "popular among young men/returning soldiers" that connote some sort of bias by Wikipedia's standards. Try to alter this the best you can.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? None of the claims are heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As noted at the top at the article, it does seem to note an American perspective more than a global or even German perspective.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one way per se, though it may leave more questions about the content itself.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are credible news sources cited in this article, but I also see that the Birkenstock website is credited. If I am correct, websites from companies themselves should not be used due to the bias they convey for themselves. If I am wrong, ignore this critique. But if that is true, consider citing the same information with a different source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Considering that this article is more focused on the present day, they are thorough and representative of the credible information out there.
 * Are the sources current? All of them were made within the last 10 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work and lead to the source itself.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is able to be followed, but maybe some sentences could be reworded differently to be more effective, especially the ones in the History section.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The sentence, "The 1970's brought a spike in sales," should end with a period instead of a comma. It seems like there are comma splices, but that can be fixed by rewording some sentences differently and potentially making them shorter.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think that the part about expansion can go under the section about Margot Fraser. The stuff about present day could go under a pop culture references or about legacy or something like that.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is only one photo on Birkenstock Arizona and the company label. There could be a couple more photos, like of a celebrity wearing them, an early Birkenstock models, and current models. However, copyright laws should be considered. Maybe public domain and free use images can be found on Birkenstocks.
 * Are images well-captioned? The caption about Birkenstock Arizona is narrow and does not exactly reflect the content of the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There is a logo at the lead section, but the photo near the early years should be an early model of the shoe or maybe an image of the founder.

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? The article is stronger since first editing. There are fixes that can be made, but the current material is promising.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Most of the information is relevant but can be organized in a different way.
 * How can the content added be improved? The above can be done by creating one or two more headings to make the article stronger and more appealing. Even small fixes like organization can make a big difference.

Overall evaluation
I am aware that I have already done a "peer review" on this article. However, I did not do it in this format, so I had to do it over again. Overall, the article has improved since the comment I posted in the "Talk" section. Just make some grammatical edits, revise some sentences and sections, and you will be good to go!