User:Kaig2000/Down jacket/11boba 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?

Kaig2000

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Kaig2000/Down jacket
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Down jacket

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi! I really enjoyed reading your article, it was really interesting to learn more about the down jacket!

Content and Organization:

I think it would be cool if you did the wikilink (?) feature where the word links to another wikipedia page. I feel like Eddie Bauer and athleisure could definitely benefit from implementing that. I think the flow of the content works really well. I like how it goes from general, to early history, to contemporary implications.

I would say be more consistent with how you write the eras in years. Sometimes you write it '80s, 90's, or 2000s so it would be good to standardize that.

I think it would also be good to make edits to the lead section in the article since you're adding a new section and changing the structure of the article.

Sources and references:

I was wondering if the down jacket wiki was incorrect in stating that George Finch created the down jacket? I think it would be helpful to cite when you reference that Eddie Bauer created the design and maybe include the year if you can find it. I think it would be also cool to include how the eiderdown coat is different from a down jacket, I'm still a bit confused on that aspect. I can't really review your sources because I'm not sure if you use the same ones as the original article but I would say try to keep stuff that is able to be cited. I read some statements throughout the section that aren't cited and might get taken down by other Wikipedia users.

I think the sources in the wikipedia article itself make sense as this is a fashion article and slightly harder to find sources for. I think it would benefit the article if you were able to find a source about the information about Eddie Bauer since that was really integral to the article for me.

Tone:

I think overall your tone is really good but I would say be careful of erring on the side of sounding informal as things like "fantastic" when you mention "fantastic insulator" might get flagged. I might use a word like "efficient"? But this is just a suggestion :-^)

Overall Impressions:

Overall really good job! I really enjoyed reading the article and learned a lot of new interesting facts! I would say be careful about sourcing and make sure to cite every statement. Occasionally, I feel that the writing can err on the side of informal writing, so try to stick with a neutral or encyclopedic tone. I really liked the adjectives but I'm not sure if they suit the Wikipedia tone. Also with the first sentence in the last paragraph, I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. Recently the brown north face puffer coat was in style tremendously and that was in 2019-2020.