Talk:Everlane

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbelfor. Peer reviewers: Johnjes6, LiangShuang97, LaurenMichelleBrown.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 28 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nishaa19. Peer reviewers: Marisalobo96, Alialm97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback

@Lbelfor: Hey!

• I think you're article sounds great! You have a lot of detail and history on the topic. The provides really valuable information.
• One thing I did notice is the phrasing of some of your sentences. For example: the second sentence under "History" I think could use a little more detail that way the audience can understand the connection between subscribers they received and the correlation to t-shirts.
• I like the addition of the Company Mission section because it really points out the importance of their goals and mission disclosure of the materials and products. It's a really eye-opening aspect of the company.
• I agree with Mako on the neutral tone of the writing. I think that it could sound more objective rather than favorable, but I think the content is great.
• If you need any help, feel free to ask me!

Johnjes6 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lbelfor: Greetings! There's a lot of great material. There are a few things I would change before I pushed this live:

• I'm not quite sure that this current article establishes notability. The Forbes article is about the creator, not the company. The TechCrunch articles are good but other sources would be useful. I'd do a bit more work and search for more third party sources to establish notability.
• You need to spend some time rewriting this for WP:TONE. Currently, this reads a bit like a advertisement for the company and doesn't feel neutral top me. You're obviously enthusiastic about Everlane but you need to maintain a formal and disinterested tone. Talking about their stuff is high quality and how they "cut out the middle man" read less like objective evaluations of the organization and more like things they write about themselves.
• In terms of tone, you might consider just removing some material. For example, your detailed description of the mission reads like something the company would write instead of something a neutral and even critical encyclopedia writer would. For example, "Everlane is dedicated to delivering timeless high-quality clothing at an affordable price with radical transparency." does not sound very neutral to me.

Once you've made these changes, you should go ahead and move this article into the article namespace. If you want to take a look at again, feel free to leave a message on my talk page! —mako๛ 00:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lbelfor: This is moving int he right direction but I think there are still some issues with tone. I made a very quick pass and fixed some stuff but I think this article still will benefit from a rewrite to make it sound a bit more neutral. —mako๛ 01:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Benjamin Mako Hill: Thank you for the edits! I went back and continued to re-write/re-word. I had a question about some of the statements in relation to the brand aesthetic and mission- for example, in the second sentence, can I state that it is of "minimalist" design as a statement/fact? Or is that read as an opinion? I was reading about the issue of neutrality with art and design, and it made me think of this. Thank you! Lbelfor (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lbelfor: In my opinion, the term "minimalist" is probably OK. One good approach might be to find other people who have referred to Everlane as minimalist (e.g., in the fashion or business press) and then add the reference to a phrase saying that those people have described the design in those terms. —mako๛ 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello, I have been peer reviewing your article and I really like it. I didn't find any big edits I need to make, but I added one more category for your article. You mentioned "minimalist design" at the beginning, so I think you can give more explanation about their design because I think design is one of the reason why Everlane is popular. I like your article. LiangShuang97 (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Was not ready for mainspace

I've gone and given this article and major cleanup as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Special note: advertising and promotion. I removed improperly sourced material, a copyright violation, a false source, improper self-sourcing, blatantly non-neutral wording, and non-encyclopedic coverage. In the above "Feedback" thread, the course instructor gave some very good advice about what needs to be done to this article before it should be moved to article space. The instructor noted many of the issues I just mentioned. Unfortunately, they were not properly addressed before the student decided to move the draft to mainspace from their sandbox. We ended up with an article that serves mainly as a promotion. I find that particularly disappointing in this case because of the nature of the course and that many of the students express interest in online marketing. I don't know the details of Wiki Ed courses but perhaps the instructor should tell the student that they should wait until they are given a green light before moving the article, or the instructor themselves should be the one to do it rather than letting the student decide when the article should become active. Since an instructor should assume responsibility for the work of students under their direction, it would be good if the instructor could take a more active role in curating the content created from their course; lackluster oversight ends up costing the volunteer editing community their time and effort. I also suggest student reviewers be much more critical in their reviews (aka critiques) in the future.

I have tagged the article with a notability banner. I would be good to see more of the primary criteria for companies given at the above notability guideline be clearly satisfied. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: Thanks for all your edits and help on the article and suggestions about how to run version of the course in the future. Thanks for catching the copyvio as well. It's all very appreciated and I'll take it to heart. —mako๛ 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I re-tagged the article with a notability warning. It's a clothing store, people. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Chisme (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I restored the notability tag. The editor who removed it failed to come here and explain why a clothing store belongs in an encyclopedia. Chisme (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a purely WP:IDON'TLIKEIT argument,is why. I found a surprising amount of coverage in independent sources, and coverage is what we base notability on: not some grand plan about what merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Take it to AfD if you must, but please examine your assumption that any class of business is inherently non-notable. I'm goinge to re-remove the tag while adding another article I found today. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 le (UTC)

Because it's covered doesn't make it special. At least we can agree that selling underwear and denim good in a clothing stores isn't remarkable and worth being in an encyclopedia. Chisme (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Two separate issues. Whether it should have an article depends by policy on whether it has attracted extensive independent coverage. It has, so I have re-removed your tag after re-reading what it actually says. I repeat: if you still think the topic is not notable, AfD it. If it does have an article, that needs to cover matters of company history and description that have been noted in the sources. The company's expansion of its offerings to include different kinds of clothing is part of that. The pledge to stop using virgin plastics is also part of that; I think you may have overlooked it in your removal of the paragraph. Short answer: no, I don't agree. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition / Removal of new sections (Brand Vision, Choose what you pay)

@Nishaa19: is a new Wikipedia editor and a student in my wikiedu class. Her changes to the article were reverted by @Chisme:, who also removed some other content from the article. Chisme seems to think that this content is simply advertising, but I disagree. Nishaa19 is trying to add well sourced information about Everlane's brand and business model, not to advertise for the brand. Of course there is room to make the content she added more encyclopedic and maybe it could be organized better or consolidated, but (in my biased opinion) I don't think reverting good-faith changes wholesale without making an effort to incorporate the good information is the way to treat new editors. Groceryheist (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Groceryheist:In your what class? Your wikiedu class? May I ask where you teach and what the purpose of your class is? I can't imagine a class devoted to helping people contribute to Wikipedia articles. Professor -- if you are a professor -- I find it hard to imagine that anyone would trust the teaching of children to someone who is thoroughly tone-deaf to what promotional language and advertising language sounds like. Whether your little charge is a new editor does not matter to me, nor should it. The question is whether gushy, gee-whiz reporting belongs here. I'm glad you admit your opinion is biased. Please take another look at this and ask yourself whether your student's homework assignment is suitable for an encyclopedia. Chisme (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chisme: Here's more information about the class. I have no problem whatsoever with this content being included in the encyclopedia. I'll reiterate @Yngvadottir:'s well said point that the company's business model and brand strategy are relevant parts of the company's history and as the company is notable should be included in the article. Groceryheist (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(responding after ping) @Chisme: Please assume good faith; yes, numerous college classes inclide editing Wikipedia as a major component, and the WMF has a program to assist with and watch over them. There is also no blanket prohibition on writing about businesses; rather, we have a distinct notability guideline for them. That said, Groceryheist, the student's edit was over-long and used promotionally toned section headers and re-used at least one reference that was already present. I've just started a copyedit that will involve adding publication info for several news references and possibly chasing down some archive URLs, so I'll be busy for a little while, but I can come back here and weave in her work, hopefully making Chisme happier. Or Nishaa19, would you rather do that yourself, summarizing the added material within the existing section on the company's history? Your full edit will remain in the article history as well as your sandbox history. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir, thank you so much for showing up and helping to improve the article! I totally agree that Nishaa19's edit had a great deal of room for improvement, including in conciseness, encyclopedic tone, and choice of headers. I encourage @Nishaa19: to continue working on the article to address these concerns. I'll be around to offer advice, but I probably won't have time to make substantial contributions myself for awhile. Groceryheist (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, Nishaa19, go for it :-) I'll check back in a few days unless someone pings me sooner. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Groceryheist:@Yngvadottir: @Nishaa19:I think we can agree that the "Choose What You Pay" section has to go. This section is a description of a company's after-Christmas sales promotion. Of the six citations in "Choose What You Pay," five come from the same source -- a Racked.com article from the year 2015. The 2015 Racked.com article reads, "For the next five days, the retailer is letting shoppers choose..." So the promotion was on for five days in 2015, but it gets a paragraph in Wikipedia in 2019. Touting a sales promotion campaign in an encyclopedia is bad enough; it's worse when the campaign is five years dead and gone. Professor, if you don't mind my saying, your students need to pay closer attention to a source's date. Outdated sources have no validity. Chisme (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The Business Insider source is from 2017, and the sale happens every year. There might be room for debate about whether the content should stay, but I'm curious about what harm exactly you think comes from including it. By the way, please don't call me "professor." Groceryheist (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Harm isn't a criterion for determining whether a subject belongs in an encyclopedia article. It probably wouldn't do any harm if the McDonald's 2 for $5 Mix & Match promotion was written into the McDonald's article, but including the 2 for $5 Mix & Match promotion in the article would burden the article with unnecessary detail. Some readers would grow suspicious. They would conclude that the McDonald's article isn't an objective overview of McDonald's but an attempt on someone's part to encourage diners to go to McDonald's and spend five dollars for (your choice of any two) a Big Mac®, a Filet-O-Fish® sandwich, a Classic Chicken Sandwich, and ten Chicken McNugget® pieces. Enough of that kind of thing and readers would conclude that Wikipedia isn't an online encyclopedia but a free-form advertising venue. Can you see the harm in that? Chisme (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a good point there that emphasis on a particular sale can be unnecessary detail that adds little to the article and that it might seem promotional. I agree that the content of the article be edited to avoid a promotional tone. That might mean cutting the section on the "pay what you want" sale, but I'm not convinced that's the only, or best solution. I think the "pay what you want" model can be interesting because of how it might lead to price transparency. This makes it a bit more than just trivia about a given sale. How do you feel about leaving things as they are for a little while, to see what improvements Nishaa19 makes? If things don't get better after a few days we can clean things up. Groceryheist (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

What you think about the "pay what you want" model leading to price transparency doesn't matter. You -- or Nishaa19 -- need to find a source that makes that argument. You need to find a magazine or newspaper article from a reputable source that describes how Everlane's twice-yearly "Choose What You Pay" promotion leads to price transparency in the clothing retail industry. If Nishaa19 can find that article, "Choose What You Pay" can stay. Chisme (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chisme:@Yngvadottir: Hello. Thank you all so much for the feedback about my addition to the article. I will look over your feedback and edit the article in the next few days and try to find an article that supports the "Choose What You Pay" model. If I fail to find such article, I will delete the section per your request. I will work on the encyclopaedic tone of the article and take all your suggestions into consideration. I will try my best to summarise the added material within the existing section on the company's history. Nishaa19 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Shipping

I just placed an order and accidentally hit express shipping for $19.95. I do not want to pay for shipping. My order number: r634884583 Please correct. Thank you, Mary Beth Goelzet 65.28.166.75 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)