User talk:SpartyZag/sandbox

You have multiple great ideas for edits in your Draft Ideas section. Any of these additions will improve the quality of the article as it is a bit short/lacking in content. Your peer reviewer also offered some feedback/suggestions that could be useful. While the company's growth due to COVID is mentioned, there is no mention of the issues/problems (which you discuss in your Draft Ideas) so that might be the way to proceed if that topic interests you.DrTraceyJHayes (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review by Jessica Whitaker
Hello, I enjoyed reading through your article and the various notes you have put together in your sandbox draft. I think your note on expanding the COVID 19 information into a section is very wise and necessary for this article. I also liked that you mentioned expanding on the treadmill section, which seems to be lacking. Great catch about the article missing some celebrity mentions! I can tell that you know a lot about Peloton already, which seems to be a great strength in this instance. Overall, I agree that this article needs much work. It is definitely in the beginning stages, which is an awesome opportunity for you to expand on the basic structure of the article. Although the article needs work, I think it does a great job at accomplishing a clear and neutral description of Peloton. The lead section is concise and leads into the subject fairly well. The language is very neutral and easy to understand for the reader. There is a clear structure to the article that makes sense.

This article is off to a great start; however, there are a few things that I noticed right away that could use improvement. The first thing I noticed was the marketing section, which is very lacking. Peloton's marketing strategy is notable and needs to be expanded on for a more balanced article. If you are planning on adding a section about Covid 19, I would also look into expanding the marketing section because the two are somewhat interlaced. I found a great source for you that may be able to contribute to this section. The source is called "Is all publicity good publicity? Ask Peloton" by Carveth (2020). Carveth (2020) offers some great statistics on Peloton's growth in the last year. The second thing I noticed that could use improvement is the lead section. Although it is concise and written well overall, it is very short and doesn't incorporate the rest of the sections very well. When I read the lead section, I wasn't exactly sure what was going to come next. I would suggest adding a sentence or two about what follows in the body of the article that incorporates all the sections. The third thing I noticed was the first line of the Product section under "Bikes." This sentence discusses the first bike and when it was released, which sounds like it might fit better in the history section of the article. The fourth thing I noticed was paragraph six of the History section that discusses Peloton's growth in the pandemic. The sentence uses the word "benefited" when discussing this topic and it comes across as a little biased. Consider changing the wording in this sentence to something like the following: Peloton had an increase in sales at the start of the COVID 19 pandemic. Lastly, I would look into adding one or two peer-reviewed articles or case studies to your research. This subject is a little tricky because most of the information about Peloton is from news outlets; however, I found some great academic articles and case studies about Peloton on Google Scholar.

I hope that my suggestions and comments will help you in your editing process. I think you have a great handle on it so far! I have no doubt you will improve this article greatly by the end. It definitely needs some love! Jessicawhita (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)