User talk:Abell132
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Ottawa/CMN2160_(Fall) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Abell132, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review, Celebrity Branding
[edit]Hello Abell132 I have been assigned to peer review the article that you are working on, "Celebrity Branding". Right off the bat I noticed that the introduction paragraph gives a good description of what the article is about. It outlines the specifics of the article as well as not oversharing the details within the article. The main issue that I see with the content of this article is that it is structured as an argumentative text rather than an explanatory one. The problem is that with almost every new section there are "advantages" and "disadvantages" subheadings included. I believe that this is a problem because the article should simply be explaining the details of the topic and not arguing what the advantages and disadvantages of the topic are. I think that if you plan to keep those subheadings in the article that you shorten them significantly and make them more subjective, less argumentative. Especially in subheadings like "bad strategy," which does not sound unbiased at all, and the content is extremely argumentative. Another thing that I wanted to mention is that this article seems to be a little over-explanatory in certain sections. For example, in the section "paid endorsement" there is just way too much information. Maybe try to shorten that section, simply discussing the important details of that section and leaving out any parts that aren't necessarily important for the reader to learn. Another example is the section "Famous musicians collaborating with designer brands," while that is interesting information have, it is extremely overloaded with information. If you do intend to keep that section, I would suggest decreasing the amount of information significantly. There also seems to be far too many sections and subheadings in this article overall. It can be quite intimidating to find this article and read through it as it seems like there is too much information. I would suggest summarizing certain subsections and bringing them together instead of leaving it as it is, it's just a bit overwhelming. I wanted to mention that the section "Communication through celebrity branding" also seems to have way too much information. I would suggest taking out the examples that are included, it just seems unnecessary to have examples for the subsections, if you are worried about the reader not fulling comprehending the subjects I would suggest working on simplifying the overall explanation. One more thing is that in the section "In today's world," there needs to be more citations and less presuming the reader is reading the article at the same period in time as it is being written. For example, the part that says "in modern-day" is completely ignorant to fact that this article may be read a decade from now, so that term would insinuate something completely different during that time than it would right now. Lastly, I would also suggest summarizing and overall shortening the subsection "Risk for companies," it is also just far too overloaded with information. Other than that this article seems to be extremely well researched with many good resources used from academic journals. Sbang103 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)