Talk:Fashion Revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 27 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mary Mijares, Go-editors, AprilGa91962893. Peer reviewers: D3032447367, Jasdeep-SH, Voicesnow, Btryce, Far out mate, Natasha.Holdt, Nanaonwiki, Helen Pope, Rani Zhu, Gobears15, Bribrisweet, Helloserenityhere, Natasha14738.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation[edit]

This article seems to be promoting Fashion Revolution instead of taking a neutral stance on the issue. It could benefit from the removal of language that advocates for the positives of the movement and the addition of a section that includes any drawbacks the movement may have. This could help neutralize the page’s content and change the page from promotional to encyclopedic. AprilGa91962893 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment as this article seems to promote the Fashion Revolution. A lot of dates were mentioned and it seemed to simply discuss the dates and showcase it as a nice event rather than seeing it as a revolution. It needs to add information on what it did rather than the base facts of who sponsored and the social media numbers but the actual basis for it and what it did to the actual movement. The page lacks information for showing the nature and the nonbiased standpoint. The first sentence of the Fashion Revolution takes place every year already makes it seem like its being marketed. Changing wording and adding more detail from what it did and why they did it at that time. (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted statements[edit]

I have not edited anything here about the way economists do not mention national insurance or a welfare state as routes out of poverty, and sweatshop imports as a route into poverty as they undermine industry and the welfare state in the UK. These points seem obscure until your research the lobby funding of groups like the All Party Group for Ethics and Sustainability in Fashion, or the department for Ethics and Sustainability in Fashion at University of the Arts' London College of Fashion. Some of the people who work for such organisations might agree. If anyone asks for an example and I come-back here, I promise to post it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:E2F9:F00:2519:3F5:E4B4:6458 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fashion Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sections[edit]

I am interested in editing this page to include more about Fashion Revolution's #WhoMadeMyClothes movement. I would describe the movement and its progress, why it started, who the key players are, a timeline, and any criticisms of the movement. I would also like to reword sections of the article that will eliminate the bias and make the article neutral for all readers. AprilGa91962893 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a bibliography for what I aim to include:

AprilGa91962893 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

The page does a great job of succinctly summarizing the movement in the introduction, and maintaining a neutral view. It is sourced properly with credible origins. As for feedback, while the Fashion Revolution/Fashion Revolution Week has great details and content regarding the specifics of the fashion revolution movement, it is somewhat difficult to follow due to the structuring of this article. In order to set up the scene to describe the fashion revolution moment, I would like to see more content in the history section to see how it initiated the movement and how it became an established force overtime. The Event section is also somewhat difficult to follow due to the structure - perhaps the implementation of a timeline or a graphic chart might help the readers visualize the time flow in a better way. I would also like to see more images embedded within the article. Overall, great progress so far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanaonwiki (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

To add onto the peer review above, I think this is a great article that brings light to a very interesting movement. It gives an in-depth view of the movement, talks about the social media impact, and almost all the references are straight from the source, which fits encyclopedia standards. Below are some suggestions to help organize the article and to help remove the advertisement warning:

Lead

  • The lead section is great, but the one sentence about being the #1 trending hashtag on Twitter seems too specific to be a part of the lead. Perhaps a better way to word this is "had a major social media presence" or "movement was supported by social media users", and then you can get into more detail in the actual article.

Content/Organization

  • I like the events section. Consider making this a timeline table? The timeline can include the dates of the fashion revolution days and weeks as well as the events in the "events" section. This way, readers can visually see when these events happened in the context of the fashion revolution days and weeks.
  • The publications section could be another good place to put a table or a bibliography.

Tone

  • The events section is where the description loses some of its neutral tone. To mitigate this, you can put all the publications in a table with the author, title, date, and ISBN of the publication and leave out potentially ad-like details such as book reviews, summaries, where to buy, paperback/hard cover, etc. An example of a bibliography can be found on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosario_Castellanos#Selected_bibliography
  • If you do want to include information on the content of the publications, consider using a more neutral tone. This wikipedia page does a great job of that in the "Books and Articles" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeynep_Tufekci#Books_and_articles

Sources

  • The sources are great here, a lot of them are straight from the Fashion Revolution website and other related media.

Media

  • Photos from Fashion Revolution days and weeks would add some more color to this article

Hope this is helpful! Go-editors (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Evaluation[edit]

Peer evaluation directed at the MoveMe group working on this article: I think the changes your group proposed to the article were really great! It definitely added a lot to the article so readers could get a better picture of the overall revolution.

If I had to provide feedback on the article in general, I think it might be beneficial to add to the introduction of the overall article. The introductory sentence could potentially more clearly describe the article's topic by referencing the purpose of the revolution. It currently states that the Fashion Revolutions is “a not-for-profit global movement with teams in over 100 countries around the world” but it doesn’t really explain what the movement was really pushing for. It might be helpful to have the aim stated right at the beginning for readers and then have the following sentence explain the reach of the movement.

When you first read the article, I think it’s clear that the history section is lacking. I noticed that this is the section that your group intended to edit and add to. I think the increased context about Somers and de Castro you wrote about was definitely really helpful in creating a fuller picture of how the revolution came to be.

I also had a suggestion on updating information for one of the sections in the article. The section titled “Fashion Revolution Day / Fashion Revolution Week” outlines the events of past Fashion Revolution Days/Weeks, but it seems to only go up to the fifth year. Since the fifth year is cited to have occurred in 2018, it might be beneficial to continue to provide information on the next year. If there’s anything relevant to add about 2019’s Fashion Revolution Week, it might help to keep the article updated.

I also noticed that an entire section or redirect on the #WhoMadeMyClothes hashtag will be added to the article. This seems really interesting to me because you’re adding a completely new element to the article about an online movement that wasn’t included initially. The original article focuses a lot of attention on physical events or online publications, yet it doesn’t heavily touch upon the social media presence related to the revolution. It seems like your section will fit in very easily within the sections about events and publication. I felt like the paragraphs you wrote about #WhoMadeMyClothes was really helpful for readers to grasp the impact. This is especially communicated by your references to statistics (such as percents) as well as certain films.

I was wondering if there were any plans to add to certain sections of the article that didn’t have much information. For example, the “Haulternative campaign” section has fairly limited information. If there aren’t any plans to expand this section maybe there’s a way it can be incorporated into another section so it doesn’t just stand alone. I’m sure it’s relevant to the overall article, but it seems slightly out of place when it has its own titled section but then doesn’t have a very in depth written piece to follow it.

I’d also like to mention that overall the writing that your group intends to add seems very neutral to me. The “Criticism Section” you wrote has the potential to sound biased, but I think you did a great job of only stating facts or others’ comments. Therefore, it didn’t come across to readers as your own personal opinion or bias.

Hope this helped, but you guys seem to be doing great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha.Holdt (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Evaluation[edit]

Positive Points

LEAD: The lead of the article is clear and provides an overview of the not-for-profit movement. The use of images in the lead is also helpful in telling the story, and highlighting the disaster in Bangladesh that triggered the movement.

CONTENT: The coverage on the #WhoMademyClothes campaign is an interesting addition to the content of the article. It adds an additional dimension to the otherwise physical events that occur through this global movement. Perhaps, there can be further focus on the social media aspects of the Fashion Revolution in a separate tab.

Areas of Improvement

ORGANISATION: There is a fair bit of overlap in the sections “History”, “Fashion Revolution Day” and “Events”. There can be a standardised manner to bring together the start of the event (the Rana Plaza disaster), as well as the different renditions of the Revolution weeks and the political events. This can also help ensure these different but closely related sections do not have such a significant differences in length, like the few sentences in “History” compared to the lengthy coverage of “Fashion Revolution Day”.

BALANCED: The events timeline is relatively limited in its coverage of events, covering some sparsely spaced out events until 2017. Instead, there can be a more complete and comprehensive coverage of the events, as well as greater detail about the event, rather than just listing them, such as “Roundtable Debate in the UK House of Lords”, which does not provide much idea of the significance of the event or what happened. Additionally, in the presentation of the timeline, there can be bolding of the dates, as well as images to help the listing of information become more readable.

SOURCES: Currently, the sources used are primarily news sources and from the Fashion Revolution website. More sources of an academic nature, such as journal articles, can be added in order to improve the reliability of the page.

Jasdeep-SH (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Hello! I'll try to provide a broad overview of the Wikipedia article and hit a couple of points.

Introduction: Can use some more external sources; rule of thumb on Wikipedia from what I've gathered, is to make sure that claims are backed every 2-3 sentences are so. (Same thing goes for the "History" section as well.) This may be a personal preference, but having the Twitter hashtag mentioned right away made me wonder whether we were going to discuss the "Fashion Revolution" as a whole vs. the hashtag itself. Perhaps having a broader statement about the importance of social media can be a good middle ground?

In terms of the overall structure, the Wikipedia article could be more direct in addressing the role social media played in this "Fashion Revolution." I've seen that the #WhoMadeMyClothes are scattered around the piece, but having a section about it (if prevalent enough in the movement), could make that aspect stand out more.

Overall, it's a very interesting piece; can't wait to see how it unfolds! Mary Mijares (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Evaluation[edit]

Lead: The lead provides an informative but succinct overview of the movement as well as its goals. My only suggestion for improvement would be to actually state the date of Fashion Revolution Day in addition to referencing its origin.

Content: Most of the content of this article is well written and informative. I would suggest adding more information to certain sections (such as the History section) to balance out the flow of the article. Seeing a short and choppy paragraph for the History and then diving into a lengthy section on Fashion Independence Day ruins the flow of the article and makes it less reader-friendly.

Tone and Balance: The tone of the article remains consistent throughout and maintains an academic and informative tone that doesn't lead the reader in any specific argument.

Sources and References: This article does an excellent job at using citations properly and referencing other wiki articles that are relevant when necessary.

Organization: In regards to the organization, I believe the article can be improved by incorporating subtopics that fall under the broader topics already outlined. Not only does it make it easier for the reader to follow the connection of certain information to the overarching movement but it allows the reader to look for specific information about the movement with more ease. Moreover, incorporating a more visually appealing timeline would be a more effective way to organize the Events section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobears15 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Evaluation[edit]

I would like to provide a broad overview of my thoughts on the Wikipedia Article. Introduction: While I think the introduction does a good job of being concise about the movement, I think it would be beneficial to add a brief overview of the movements accomplishments so far. Doing this would help provide a framework for the how the article is laid out and give a brief glimpse of what is to come in the article. History: As mentioned in prior evaluations, whats in the history section is great, but I think more is needed. I think either more substance can be added to the history of this movement or maybe condensing the next two section up through events into history to generate a more clear cut and robust historical context for the movement. Timeline: As mentioned in previous evaluations, the timeline seems to end for multiple sections around 2017-2018. It would be nice to see where the movement is at today. Critiques: While I am not sure of the critiques or criticisms of this movement, it would be interesting to note any opposition to the movement or lack thereof by any entities. References: I like the abundance of references for a relatively short article, my only suggestion would be to add some references from academic journals or just a more balanced set of sources. Far out mate (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

The article includes a basic on this fashion revolution movement. However, as Wikipedia suggests, this article contains content that is written like an advertisement. The fashion revolution may not only include his hashtag movement and it does not seem to cover all the concepts and ideas under the fashion revolution. Regarding the content of the movement itself, the historical background could be elaborate more so that people could have a better understanding of why the movement is going on. The article includes some events and institutions involved which look more like promotional content for that event rather than the encyclopedic content. It may be helpful to only focus on Fashion Revolution and #WhoMadeMyClothes themselves and clarify the relationship between the two and illustrate under a neutral point of view on what is the movement, why it happened, and what is the consequences. It will also be helpful to include the sources from some more reliable ones, I have found 2 repeated sources being cited, and academic research articles on the industry can be added to improve the credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ssss

Peer Review[edit]

One specific part of the article that stood out to me was the "Schools, colleges and universities" section. I think it's important to educate the younger generation about humanitarian issues from a young age so that they can grow up with a contextual knowledge, and I loved that you included that section. The bullet list in particular with all the different worksheets categorized for different school levels really stood out to me. One improvement I would consider, is in the "Fashion Revolution Day / Fashion Revolution Week" section, it seems to me like it is explaining the progression of Fashion Revolution overtime. I think it would be easier to follow if sub-headers with the month and year of each major event was added, so that readers could follow it easier like a timeline.

Hope that helps! Rani Zhu (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Peer Review[edit]

This article follows the chronology of the Fashion Revolution really well. I especially like how the article closely details every year's Fashion Revolution Day and/or week. Sometimes, it reads as though the Fashion Revolution is not a social movement driven by social media, but a specific organization that leads the movement. If this is the case, then that must be clarified better in the article. The article also has some typos and grammatical errors that could be quickly cleaned up. The section "History" does not have any references attached to it. It is only 2 sentences long and I wonder if it is necessary to be included at all or if it would work better in a different section. The end of the section Fashion Revolution Day/Fashion Revolution Week could also use some clarification in the structure at the end. Finally, the section on publications provides good evidence on the impression the Fashion Revolution is making in published written works, but instead of just listing the publications, I think it could do a better job of summarizing the importance or main point of each article, otherwise it just kind of floats on its own at the end of the article. Helen Pope (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

This article has a very clear history section. It was well-written and easy for users to understand. I appreciated how both the #WhoMadeMyClothes and #insideout hashtag were mentioned in this article. The article does a great job outlining details about the 5 years of Fashion Revolution Week. In the “Events” section, instead of a list of dates, it would be more helpful to include a graphic of a timeline. This can make the timeline more visually appealing to the reader by presenting it differently. The “Haulternative campaign” section is very short, so it may be helpful to expand more on this campaign. Since some fashion vloggers’ videos were mentioned, it may be helpful to include more information about how viral the videos went, if it made an impact, how much engagement it received from viewers, etc. Since the article mentions criticisms of the movement, I think it would also be helpful to balance the article by having a section labeled as “Successes” of the movement and its longterm impact.

Peer Review[edit]

Consider the efficacy and productivity of the "Events" section. Maybe include the consequential effects of those events - how did each respective event advance Fashion Revolution's mission further or create any impact? I believe that this section holds larger significance than the space it currently occupies and the article would definitely benefit from further detail.

Overall, the article is concisely written and to the point. It covers the major areas of involvement carried out by Fashion Revolution and includes a holistic view of the organization.

Btryce (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combining Sections[edit]

I am curious if people think that we should combine the #WhoMadeMyClothes section with the #HaulAlternative section under a larger heading of "Hashtag Movements"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AprilGa91962893 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest that the two "Criticism" sections should be combined into one larger section because the first "Criticism" section is only two sentences. The first "Criticism" section is too short and looks unfinished. The combined section would give the article a more complete, polished look. I also think that section titled "School, colleges, and universities" is too generic of a title and should be renamed. The section should have a more specific heading that pertains to the movement such as "Academic Involvement." As stated in other peer reviews, I agree that the "Events" timeline section could be improved by sprucing up the formatting, including more information for each event, and adding more recent events from 2017 - present day. Bribrisweet (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Call for comments on the Project: Wiki meets Sustainable Fashion[edit]

Hello, we are PulloJesicaNoemi and Irinarosarina. We are presenting a Grant, Wiki meets Sustainable Fashion. We are a group of Latin women interested in sustainable fashion, and our goal is to bring in and train 360 female volunteers to edit pre-existing articles and to create articles related to this subject. If you could please check out our project here and leave your comments, it would be greatly appreciated!

--Irinarosarina (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fashion_Revolution&oldid=1201931624"