User talk:Kate.winski/sandbox

Feedback

All of the sections (i believe are without headers at the moment) are equal in length, I think that the more important sections to the topic should go more into depth. I think I can detect that the writer is female, however it is a more difficult topic to write about for women in general; it makes it more obvious because of the way they refer to the topic about women, its all about how women are used at objects and how it is unaccepted and unnatural, etc. There are some parts that need to be explained more or rephrased, such as “Gucci began to become popular,” “ prime example of what they are supposed to do” – what exactly are they supposed to do? Uses “most people” “many people” Uses society as a whole Everything is related to the topic and can be used because it si important, not much unnecessary stuff The article does focus more on the negative aspect of advertisement and not really any positive information on Gucci. It is all about how they negatively portray women in their advertisement. Im not sure if this is what he/she is trying to do, but it may make it more effective if it highlighted more positive aspects of Gucci because this article is about Gucci in general if I am not mistaken Needs rephrasing: “The film the Gucci ad is inspired by is based on a 14-year-old heroin addict”; not only is it “inspired by” and “based on,” should the Gucci ad film be in any certain format such as italics or underlined since it is a film?

There are a lot of good internal links, and also references are used very well. I believe every reference used however is incomplete, highlighted red. Most are because they need to check the date values/access date

the article did very well in bringing forth the topic in a very eye-catching way, perhaps it may be better if there was a slight explanation of what Gucci actually is. I believe the history of the topic should all be located next to each other, and the controversy should all be together, and then all examples and further information should be together. For the most part it is already like this besides few smaller areas/ideas! The ideas in the article are very clear and definitely important in the paper so dont remove them!

I think it will be very important to set this article up in a more chronological way! Hgurie2 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

Wiki Peer Review

Article is organized and in chronological order. All of the information was on topic and the article flowed together well. The perspective of the author is neutral. The author gives facts and sources to go along with the information. This article is well put together. Adding the external link of Gucci’s Public Enemy ad was a great idea! I think it would be a good idea to do the same for the 2003 advertisement that was mention since that one comes the Public Enemy one. As a reader I was wondering what it looked like since it kind of sparked their controversial ads. The author does refer to unnamed groups of people; “Many people find these advertisements offensive and in turn many…” “Many believed that the outcry regarding the ad just fed the…” You could start these sentences off with “These advertisments were found to be offensive…” “The outcry regarding the ad…” The article has given me perspective on how I need to organize my Wiki page and where are good places to insert links. It is very well organized and the references are relevant. One major thing to improve on would be a strong conclusion or ending statement. Sbank16 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)