Second review

I just noticed that Ian (Wiki Ed) moved this back to user space as not ready. Please ask and work with him here on the talk page as to what he suggests.

I reviewed it again and noted an odd quotation mark. Also, you might tweak the tone in a few spots, especially "As a society, it can become difficult". That is, though you have the sources to substantiate your prose, it feels as if the author of the article (rather than its sources) is the one making the claim. It's as subtle thing though. Have a look at how some well-established related articles and see if that helps.

Other things you can do:

maybe a photo
once it's live
- make sure it's not a Wikipedia:Orphan
- categories

-Reagle (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Reagle. I left @Georgiabdj some feedback on their talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reagle review

Georgiabdj, good start. I made a few tweaks and have two suggestions, and you can then proceed:

Edit for concision. You can trim 10-20% of the words, especially across redundancies in the section; perhaps you can collapse environment and social impacts into a signal "impacts" section.
Many of your sentences have a claim and it isn't clear who the source/authority is for that claim. For example, "According to legal scholar Mark Brewer, placing an importance on brand transparency..."

-Reagle (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]