User:Vedusk/Unilever/Redrose36 Peer Review

General info
User:Vedusk/Unilever - Wikipedia
 * Whose work are you reviewing
 * @Vedusk
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Unilever - Wikipedia:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Vedusk! Here's my peer review:

Lead: A brief overview is included, making sure to rediscuss some points mentioned within other parts of the article. The only thing I would suggest is not to use the pronoun "you" when addressing the reader in your first sentence of the overview. It sounds a bit informal and makes it a little more personal instead of sticking to the required neutral tone.

Content: The content is adequately relevant to the topic of sustainability and environmental efforts. Its information is most definitely up to date as it talks about the company's hopes and goals regarding sustainability for the near future. The one thing is that it sounds a bit generic and general. What I mean by that is that the things mentioned can be said about any other company. My suggestion is that you mention more about the specifics of the company's efforts that are unique to the company. Use these points, "Their complete strategies, which include making products more sustainable, using responsible sourcing, and working for net-zero emissions, show that they are looking at climate change problems from all angles," and explain them a bit more. That should be your focus.

If you can, try expanding the criticism section. With the mitigation section because so thick, the criticism section is a bit underwhelming.

Tone: You do a great job at keeping the article tone very neutral and unbiased and using the pronoun "they" to do so, especially in your mitigation section. For the difficulties and criticism section, I would try wording the last two sentences a bit differently or simply getting rid of them. They give off a slight tone of concern and urgency rather than a neutral one.

References: Although the sources work, are current, and reflect the information conveyed in the article, they are only primary sources with information straight from the company's website. Another note is that as a reader, I can't see where each source is cited within the article. You know when you see a [1] or [2] and so on, I would suggest adding that so the reader can easily see which source you are referencing.

Organization: Great job on the organization. You did a good job with the headings and splitting the mitigation section into multiple paragraphs to make it easier to read and follow. Keep it up!!