User:St3ffsK/House of CB/MackenzieOliver Peer Review

General info
St3ffsK
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:St3ffsK/House_of_CB?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):House of CB

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your paper?


 * Not really - I'd definitely preface in the lead that there will be two differing sections regarding the history of the brand and the evolution (just so readers know what to expect going in!)

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?


 * Yes, I think the lead's first sentence very clearly describes the topic of the article.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?


 * As mentioned above, I think there could be one sentence deliberately outlining the proceeding sections.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (no)

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? (concise)

Content:

Is the content relevant to the topic? (yes)

Is the content added up to date? (yes)

Is there content missing or content that does not belong?


 * I'd maybe add something about the specific types of clothes that the brand sells - the article talks about how it focuses on a specific sillhouette and how its a "full collection of womenswear" but I think talking about which specific products are most successful and popular could be beneficial.
 * I think adding US dollar conversions in parentheses for the pricing could be helpful, especially because a lot of Wikipedia users are national.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? (no)

Tone and Balance:

Is the content added neutral? (yes)

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? (no)

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? (no)

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


 * No, but it does come across as a little advertisement-y (which admittedly is a hard thing to get past when it comes to writing about clothing brands / companies that utilize a lot of marketing)

Sources and References:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? (yes)

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (yes)

Are the sources thorough? (yes)

Are the sources current? (yes)

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?


 * No, but it is understandably hard to get a diverse range of sources and authors when the article's topic is aimed at a specific audience and produces specific types of press / coverage

Are there better sources available, such as peer reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?


 * I think the sources used are good and relevant, but I think there could be a couple more of them (solely because a lot of info is linked to the same source).

Check a few links - do they work? (yes)

Organization:

Is the content added well written - i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy to read?


 * Yes, I love that the added content was an entirely new section as opposed to simply throwing extra sentences into sections with already strong foundations.
 * I think the concept of brand evolution, especially in this modern age of fashion, is super relevant and an addition this article could highly benefit from

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?


 * I didn't notice any!
 * I think the phrasing can be adjusted slightly on some of the lines, like for example: "House of CB bills itself as "affordable luxury," offering items that are meant to draw attention to and generate prices ranging from £59 to £209" -- the "meant to draw attention to" kind of gets cut off by the pricing comment, so the meaning is a little lost on me.

Is the content added well organized, i.e. broken down into sections that reflect major points of the topic? (yes)

Images and Media: N/A

For New Articles Only: N/A

Overall Impressions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article?


 * Yes, definitely! As mentioned above, brand evolution is super relevant right now and an addition this article could highly benefit from.

What are the strengths of the content added?


 * I like the additional section, especially considering how little information the initial article had.

How can the content added be improved?


 * I'd just double check some of the phrasing, and maybe add a few more sources (since a lot of what you're referencing is linked to the same source).