User talk:Mhene21/sandbox

Peer Reviews
Post by Rachel Cho I think I talked to you about this in class before, but how the heck does Sitka not have their own Wiki page?! While the information is good, you need a general overview of the company as an intro. Maybe change some of the language to be more concise and borderline dry. I felt some of the sentences were getting a little wordy. Maybe add a subsection of what kind of clothing/ accessories they sell and the brands to show that sustainability is carried throughout. You may also want to add a small bio of the owner/ creators. Trackie1694 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Rachel Cho
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there should be a brief Intro before the Table of Contents. Check other pages for how to format this.
 * Wordy: yes.  Generally the writing should be tightened and focused.

Peer Review by Dylan

For formatting you should create heading using == == so that wikipedia creates a table of contents and makes the titles easier to read. Also you should change how you set up your references so that they are included within the article itself after the facts that they support. You can do this by putting the reference < /ref> after the sentence you want to support with that particular reference. You may want to include an introduction to give more general information about the company and what it does, then you could go into more detail in the paragraphs after that. If you aren't sure take a look a some wiki pages from larger companies like Microsoft or GE for general page layouts and article flow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSunDanceKid19 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC) You may also want to include a box on the right side of the page that contains all of the relevant information on the company at a glance. For a very good example look at the Microsoft wiki page. It would also be good to include the corporate logo on the page as well. TheSunDanceKid19 (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestions about where to look for good examples.

Peer Review by Jocelyn
I think that it was a great idea to do your page on Sitka, seeing as, like you outlined in the page, there are a lot of interlocking interests in the organization that can be tied to various interests/wikipedia sources (i.e. Vancouver, fashion and corporate sustainability). One thing that you could make a little clearer is the title and intention of the page. Currently the first heading is "Sitka and the Changing Tides of Fashion" this reads a little bit more like a newspaper article than wikipedia, stronger objectivity is needed. Perhaps an intro paragraph strictly about what Sitka is could be very helpful to this, followed by a "Corporate Responsibility" or "Sustainability" section later on (you have this in you'r "accountability section"). While I liked that you touched on other clothing companies working towards similar goals, this is a bit vague and, again, reads like a newspaper. Perhaps you could do a partnerships/external links section to supplement this. Also, it would be awesome to diversify your sources and have stronger references--there must be newspaper articles that focus on Sitka and the environment, especially because Sitka is BC based. Cheers! jocie (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's important to maintain the 'neutral point of view' encyclopedia tone. Using diverse sources is a great way to increase objectivity.

Peer Review by Kimia
Interesting choice of topic! I liked how you brought in other companies in there, such as "lululemon"it always helps to understand a topic when comparison is drawn. I did not know what Sitka was, so it help me understand why it was a smaller company compared to the ones you talked about. However, I think some modifications will help your wiki. First off, I think you should definitely add images to your Wikipedia. Personally, I find that when a wiki contains a lot of images, not only do I become more intrigued to read and learn more about the topic but it is also a good mechanism to understand the topic at choice more. Second, I think your topic needs to be more in depth. Perhaps you can add an intro of the company "Sitka" itself and elaborate more on its history and then in your next headings move on to how its related to fair trade markets. Third, you should add a table of contents, it helps organize your page and for people to know where to go depending on what they want to know. Lastly, I thought your use of hyperlinks was good,but maybe you should also hyperlink the founders Rene Gauthier and Andrew Pain, it may help the strength of your topic! Best of luck:) Kpars100100 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent advice about organization and formatting. This will help the readers interpret the information.

Peer Review by Taylor
For the title, I would use == on either side of "Sitka" so that it is apparent. Also, PLEASE add pictures. I am a bit confused, is this going to be an add one to the main Sitka clothing page? If yes, please make note of that. If not, add it to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitka and maybe change the title to something that makes it seem not like a newspaper headline, but if this is THE Sitka Clothing page, a LOT more information is needed. Adding a table of contents will make the page easier to navigate through. Where are the stores in BC located? This might be a good way I think this would be good to add. Your use of linking to other wiki pages was good, though if you are hyperlinking all of one word/company (e.g. H&M) please link EVERYWHERE is it located. It may be a good idea to link the founders (if they don't have a wiki page, EXTERNALLY link to them). Also, I think that there are some that do not need to be linked, such as "water". A "See Also" subheader might also be a good idea, and link to Ten Tree Apparel, or other fashion industries (like Lululemon or some others you have listed in references). Also, please reference facts with the references right after instead of just having them listed in the last subheading. Lastly, please ensure your spelling and grammar are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorkeraiff (talk • contribs) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent advice about adding Sitka Clothing to the 'Sitka' disambiguation list.
 * Is there already another page about Sitka clothing? If so, then this material should be integrated into it rather than being a separate page.

Peer Review by Jacob
The subject of your paper was a great idea. There is a lot of interesting information on your page that now has be intrigued. I think that this page would be stronger if it wasn't about Sitka and instead about environmentally friendly clothing manufacturing. I think that because 1) The page doesn't sound objective and sounds like it is praising Sitka for it's efforts. 2) It contains a lot of information on things that are not relevant to the page such as other companies and explains practices. and 3) The page does not include a lot of sources. Saying that, If you keep using the same title I would like to give you my best advice. You should go through the information carefully and pick out any irrelevant information. I can't help but feel like there is too much arbitrary information on things such as H&M and other companies. Information on these companies do not help us learn more about what Sitka is doing specifically so I would take it out. I would also consider taking out your first section entirely. Starting with a brief description of the company and then introducing the environmental significance could be a stronger way to open up the page. So start with the history. A page that has little information on it, is going to be better than a page with a lot of irrelevant information. References should be cited in text and there is an easy way to do it. When you finish writing the sentence that is referenced ad this and insert the source in the middle of that. Also, some images would be great. Finding some pictures of cloths should be easy enough and I don't think you would need to use the Sitka brand specifically for this part. Proofing your work to fix some miner grammatical mistakes is a good idea too. I always get a friend to proof my work. A fresh set of eyes will catch the small stuff that you might not Just to reiterate, I think you need to add more specific information on Sitka, take out irrelevant info, reference in text, be objective, do a solid proof reading or have someone do a proof read for you. Goodluck with the wiki page. I think you are doing a great job so far but the page just needs some tightening up. Bosancich123 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree completely about the need for more objectivity. This reads as if it were written by friends of the company; it's not sufficiently objective.  If this isn't fixed I expect that the Wikipedia editors will delete the page right away.
 * Good advice about referencing too, and about friends as proofreaders.

Feedback from Ruth and Rosie
For the Draft grade we wanted to evaluate a March 10 version of the page, but there are only Feb. 26, March 11 and March 17 versions. The comments below apply to the most recent version.
 * Your point of view is far from neutral, which will make the page not acceptable to the Wikipedia editors. Instead you are consistently positive - nly saying why Sitka is good.
 * It's not good practice to use WIkipedia pages as sources for other Wikipedia pages. Instead you should just link to the information on those pages.
 * Citing other Wikipedia pages does not solve your objectivity problem.
 * This page contains too much unnecessary information and opinion about sustainability and conservation.
 * The factual information it does contain is not well organized, usually buried in other opinion statements and general background.
 * You say Sitka is a 'rather small company'. Can you back this up with sales numbers or other information? How many stores are there?  How many employees?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieredfield (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)