User:Wiki Editor Sydney/Alta Gracia Apparel/Maisha28 Peer Review

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username); Sydney
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Wiki Editor Sydney/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the contents are relevant because they talked about the Alta Garcia brand.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, they used articles that are form 2018-2019
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, there was no opinion based information in this article.
 * 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? I think the controversy section persuade the reader to think that the brand is not good and has been criticized for their actions.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I like it how they gave more information about the history and added more sections that would help the reader understand more about this company.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes they added sections like competitors and geographic effect, which help the readers understand more about this brand.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * Are images well-captioned? no image
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no image
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?:  Yes, the contents added improved the overall quality of the article because they added different examples and gave details that made their article stronger and clearer.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added are that they gave a history about how the company was established. This section helps the reader to understand how this company gained popularity.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added can be improved by making the controversy section clearer. For example, they said that there are some troubles but did not explain what types of trouble and how this trouble came. It would be helpful to add more details on this section so that the reader can understand this situation more clearly.