User:CVW003/Ella Moss/Janekraaijvanger Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

CVW003

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ella_Moss&diff=1251998249&oldid=1250727851
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Ella Moss

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hello! Here is my peer review for you!

Lead:

The lead is perfectly explanatory/a quick summary of what the topic is. Although short, I don't really know what else you could add.

Content:

I would say that the content added along with completely changing the background paragraph was a very helpful and good call. Adding new sections around it's store fronts/acquisition was also very good. The only thing I can think of adding is in the background paragraph maybe adding another section called "Notable Recognition" or something like that where you put the information paragraph about sex and the city, etc. I would also separate the sentence "Ella Moss was once sold at department stores and boutiques. As of 2024, the brand can be purchased at Costco and Amazon." from that notable recognition part and put that under store fronts.
Although many of the articles/sources added are from 2011 from my understanding there wasn't very much/any information on this topic and you basically built this wiki page from the ground up. You added a very substantial amount of resources and all are relevant.
The only thing I think you could possible add is too the storefronts section because you discuss the first openings but are still stores still open? Did they close due to the acquisition? It is just a little abrupt and confusing. This is also from a complete outside perspective as I had never heard of the brand/ store before

Tone and Balance:

Overall your tone is very neutral throughout the entire thing other than the acquisition section where you use certain adjectives and words to discuss the deal. It does not sound like you are pushing the brand on the reader at all I would just be weary about how you go about the acquisition because also a lot that is unclear. For example what is VF Corp and who/what is Delta Galil? Also who is Debah? I think this paragraph just needs some expansion/edits

Sources:

Make sure all are properly linked
Not sure if there are really any recent sources on this topic so it is understandable that they are from 2011

Overall organization:

it is easy to read but if you fix those things about the notable recognition and store fronts it would flow exponentially better
You clearly built this article from the ground up pretty much which is impressive! I looked at other "older" brands wiki pages like Charlotte Russe and honestly they are pretty comparable, the only thing I would also think about adding is any photos but overall this is really good!