User:St3ffsK/House of CB/Alyssadebragga 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?

St3ffsK

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:St3ffsK/House of CB

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

House of CB

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead:

The lead and introductory sentence have not changed from the original article to the sandbox draft, but I do not see it as a huge issue since the original article sums everything up quite well. The intro article does not mention anything about the added information that you have supported this stub article with though, so I would recommend mentioning that (the brand evolution). The lead is not overly detailed. It gives a brief description of the brand and its history and paves the way for the rest of the article. Overall well done, but preview the paragraph you added in your sandbox.

Content:

The content you've added is relevant and up to date. I like how you brought social media into the discussion as I would agree the company is very tied/connected to social media such as Instagram and Tik Tok. Personally, I see a lot of ads and promo content for this brand on my pages so it seems very relevant for you to have added this section and information. This article does not address topics related to underrepresented populations.

Tone and balance:

The content you've added seems to be neutral to me and doesn't pose any issues regarding opinion based commentary or discussion. I'm not seeing any opinions or bias which is good. I could maybe sense a little bit of persuasion in the language you use, coming off as a little promotional of the company, unintentionally obviously I assume, so maybe neutralize the "brand evolution" paragraph a tiny bit. Other than this, great work.

Sources and references:

I'm not noticing any new sources. This might be alright since there are already 12 in the original article, but it is a good idea to consider adding new sources with more current information to add to the article. House of CB is still a very trendy brand so you can definitely find some super current information on them I bet. The most current source you have is 2023 but I bet you could find one from this year. I recommend this to really increase the quality of your article. The existing links are working for me though so that is all a good start.

Organization:

Overall a great job in the paragraphs you added to the pre-existing article stub. The language is professional, concise, and well-written. No grammar or spelling issues that I can find. The content you've added is well organized, just consider adding a bit more to the middle portion of "brand evolution" to make it more than just two sentences and more of a solid section.

Images and media:

I don't believe you added any images or media to your draft and I highly recommend doing so. There are a ton of images you can use from online to exemplify the brand, from the House of CB website itself or somewhere else. Consider adding an image under the small section I just mentioned above in the "organization" section of this peer review. Photos of some of their different products would help give readers a way better idea of the company than before seeing no photos of House of CB's product.

Overall impression:

Overall, very well done article. You took a short stub-but-good article and added insightful, concise information in a professional, neutral tone. The content definitely adds to the article in my opinion. Your grammar and use of relevant information is a strength I'm noticing. I don't see any of your added work as unnecessary. Like I mentioned above, just consider neutralizing the language a bit in the last couple of paragraphs you added and add some content/imagery and I think you have a great article!