User talk:AprilGa91962893/Fashion Revolution/D3032447367 Peer Review

Peer Review by D3032447367
General info Whose work are you reviewing? AprilGa91962893 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AprilGa91962893/sandbox#First Draft of Wikipedia Article

Lead evaluation The Lead has not yet been updated to incorporate this group's respective content that they are going to incorporate. However, given that the group did not add an abundance of information, but rather just the #WhoMadeMyClothes section, I think that a BETTER sentence in the Lead relating back to #WhoMadeMyClothes would do. I understand that within the History section this group is incorporating how #WhoMadeMyClothes is relevant to Fashion Revolution, but I think a better introductory than what is currently present can also be echoed briefly in the Lead. Given that the Lead already does have an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, I do not think the group needs to incorporate this; the Lead also does a great job of incorporating a brief description of the majority of the article's major sections. That being said, I would perhaps introduce a sentence regarding the Fashion Revolution publications and podcasts section, as well the Schools Colleges and Universities section, in addition to a better #WhoMadeMyClothes section as detailed above.

Content evaluation The group states that they are going to incorporate a timeline, however, the timeline is not present in their sandbox; because of this, I would either add a timeline to their sandbox ASAP, or delete the statement that they are going to add this. Aside from this, all content they have added is relevant to the Fashion Revolution article, particularly within the #WhoMadeMyClothes section they are adding. All their content also appears to be up to date, stemming from the hashtag's beginning in 2013 to 2018. I would just verify that there are no significant events following 2018 that should be added.

Tone and balance evaluation The content added is very neutral, which I think is very beneficial given the current bias flag on the Fashion Revolution article. I also think the addition of the Criticism section they are adding is incredibly important to add to the article to attempt to contradict how it is written like an advertisement, provide a more neutral point of view, and work to remove the current bias flag.

Sources and references evaluation The only new content that I believe still needs a reliable secondary source of information is the following: "As of June 2018, 172 brands across 68 countries have revealed more information about their supply chains than in previous years.", and "In 2016, various fashion brands criticized Fashion Revolution by questioning the methods that the organization and the website Ethical Consumer used for the Transparency Index." I also noticed that the first footnote they incorporated (Fashion Revolution was founded in 2013 in response to the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh by Carry Somers and Orsola de Castro. Somers and de Castro both had experience in the fashion industry), had the citation in the middle of the sentence, while it should actually be at the end. However, all the links I have checked work which is a great sign; all sources are also current and appear to be from reliable, thorough sources.

Organization evaluation The content added is well-written, and written particularly concise which I think is great. It is also broken up into two sub-sections that make sense, with fitting paragraphs within each. I don't think any changes need to be made on the organization side of things.

Images and media evaluation This evaluation is not applicable given that my peers did not add any images or media. However, if there is an image associated with the #WhoMadeMyClothes movement, I would suggest they incorporate this.

D3032447367 (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)