User talk:PisaJunior/Fashion week

peer review

 * 1) Neutral Voice


 * 1) Note at least 1-2 sentences where the author has a strong neutral voice.

-”In 2019, initiatives such as the “Fashion Pact” and “Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action” articulated goals for the fashion industry in green energy, material use, and supply chain modernization to reduce carbon emissions.”

-”While implementation was left up to the interpretation of designers, organizers framed the requirements as an essential transitional step to fully sustainable collections”


 * 1) Note any areas or sentences where the author could improve their neutral voice/tone.

-” Implementing these ideas will encourage sustainable development in the fashion industry because fashion week both reflects and influences major trends and market demand”


 * 1) Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism


 * 1) Note any sentences/sections where you think the author might be struggling with accidental plagiarism/close paraphrasing. What strategies would you suggest for the author to help with this?

-I think you avoided accidental plagiarism/close paraphrasing, but I would be careful with any numbers you are using. I can’t tell with the New York Times article because I need a subscription to view.


 * 1) Readability


 * 1) Note any sentences that you think are particularly strong or effectively written.

- “Additional proposed solutions include combining all the collections for one season, displaying men and women’s wear at the same event, and establishing fashion “districts” in fashion capitals like New York to minimize traffic congestion during fashion week”

-You did well


 * 1) Note any sentences you had to read more than once to understand what the writer was saying.

-I am a bit confused over the global citizen sentence. Is this meant to show that professional buyers generate half as much CO2 as global citizens do in a specific time frame? I can’t view the NYT article, so I don’t know. I don’t think this


 * 1) Note any errors (e.g. spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) for the author to fix before publication.

-I think you could say “The influential brands…” instead of the “influential brands like…”  and “the brands” instead of “brands like”

-You us the word “also” too much


 * 1) Rubric


 * 1) Review the rubric for the Wikipedia project final draft (download here
 * 2) Actions
 * 3) ). Write 1-2 sentences of feedback for each section, summarizing what (if anything) the author could do to improve in that area. (You do not need to assign points or note what category of the rubric you think they fall into, unless you think it would be helpful.)

Lead section

-Introductory sentence: did not change anything, very accurate and precise (Virtuoso)

-Summary: The summary is professional, I think since the sustainability section takes up a big portion of the article; it should be mentioned in a sentence or two in the leader section

-Context: This is virtuoso since all information mentioned in the lead section is in fact present in the body, but, important section in the body is not in the lead section

Article

-Organisation: This is professional, the entire article is clearly organised with appropriate headings and subheadings and transitions. However, the language at times could have more clarity

-Content: This is virtuoso, the article covers relevant information to your assigned topic and links this with the other sections already in the article

-Balance: This is virtuoso, the balance does not favour one side unduly

-Tonne: This is professional. I think some places could be regarded as chatty or perhaps not neutral. For example, the “unrealistic” sentence.

Images: No images were added, but the images already there are good (Virtuoso)

References

-The citations are virtuoso, every statement can easily be associated with a supporting reference

-sources: The sources are good for the discipline and appropriate: virtuoso

-completeness: The references are complete (virtuoso)

Existing Article

-New sections: The two sections you added are comprehensive and do not detract from the existing article (virtuoso)

-Re-organisation: This is good, the flow is good. I would give this virtuoso.

-Gaps: The gaps the author identified have been filled: virtuoso)

-Smaller additions: The author did not add any small additions to relevant sections of the article, so I don’t know how to rate this, so I will say virtuoso.


 * 1) Final Questions/Considerations


 * 1) What would you describe as the project/author's greatest strength? In other words, what do you think they are doing very well?

-I believe the greatest strength is the amount of suitable and reliable sources and information they included and added to the existing article. Their additions are perfectly sufficient at addressing their content gap.


 * 1) What is one thing you think the author could do to most improve their project before turning in the final draft?

-I think you can potentially shorten some sentences to improve the readability of your additions. I don't think there is a need to say "like" or "also" or "as well." In addition, you could add something to the lead section about sustainability if you think it is needed.


 * 1) Note any additional thoughts, questions, or considerations not captured in any earlier comments that you would like the author to consider moving forward.

-N/A Asiaaaaa2020 (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)