User:Juliettelm/Skims/Jaditol Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Juliettelm


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Juliettelm/Skims - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * (not applicable)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Juliette, Here's my peer review for you:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Since you created a wiki page for SKIMS, I appreciate your work on the lead section.
 * The part "Not to be confused with SKIMS" is helpful and unique that reminds readers what SKIMS they will be reading.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, I like the way you use Kim's words "your basic go-to" to provide a basic idea of the product/product line.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not much a brief description of the sections, but will be a good idea to consider adding to the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? & Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * NO, you did a good job.
 * I enjoy reading your lead especially you have hyperlinks that explain what shapewear/underwear/loungewear is, when in essence, SKIMS really focus on these products.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Basically everything on the page is added by you and
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the information that talks about SKIMS collaborated with (Fendi and Olympics) are super recent.
 * I like the decision you made to talk about collaborations since thats a big part of SKIMS making reputations.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There must be information missing since you created a brand new topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is neutral. But it is a good idea to work on some of the grammar and punctuations, such as "Since launching in September 2019 SKIMS has seen immense success. The first launch ..."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope. Addressed the backlash of Japanese culture.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope, the content describes the product line provides information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, references are from, for example, NYT and Vogue, pretty notable.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the part about backlash of the Japanese culture is from credible sources, and wish to know more about it.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Very recent, most are from 2021, the latest 2019.
 * 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.)
 * Keep eyes on the SKIMS official website, they launched a new product line a while ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yesss. Good job. Remember to cite your source when use more reference.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Super easy to read with the hyperlinks for some nouns that seem unfamiliar. It is short and clean. But always a good idea to do a deeper research.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No spelling errors but watch the grammars.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I would suggest you to move the ownership right after the History section before diving into the products.

Images and Media
(Not applicable)

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * Yes, the sources are from Forbes, NYT, and the official websites.
 * 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?
 * Yes, there are main section topics and sub-topics follow.
 * Something that I don't understand is why the subtopics ("Controversy" and "ownership") are bolded while the main topics are not.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, many links provided to explain the words.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Definitely! Congrats on creating a wiki page for SKIMS.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Organized but there are some information gap can be filled up, such as the vision statement and why Kim created the product line/brand.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Yes, more content. Can't wait to see what edition you will make.