Talk:Anti-sweatshop movement

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 29 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AprilGa91962893 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Go-editors, AAnonymous Bear, Nanaonwiki, Parouz, Helen Pope, Rani Zhu, EstabanMiranda, Markowijaya.

New Edits

Hi so there seems to not really be much happening in this page, but I'll be making several substantial edits to the page. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Also if you know how to keep "Anti-Sweatshop Movement" (all caps) from redirecting to "Sweatshops" that would be greatly appreciated Abergin13 (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Hi! I really enjoyed reading your article. The main things I think you need to focus on are fixing your grammatical errors and adding more detail to each of your sections. If possible, it would be great for each section to have a couple of subsections, each illustrated by corresponding pictures. You seem to be on track and I look forward to seeing how you continue to edit this article! Athomas1995 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Further Suggestions

The article looks really good! The main areas of improvement are to add pictures and to add more detail to each of the sections, particularly the Criticisms of sweatshops and Contemporary anti-sweatshop movement sections. Keep up the good work! OLucier (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

removed sentence

seems irrelevant to the article as a whole:

Mayor Boyle always gave full credit for the idea to his Wife Nancy Wlodarski. He also said that it was important that the legislation started in a middle class suburban community since it demonstrated that all Americans, regardless of fantasy divisions, believed their “neighbors” should be loved and protected regardless of political and geographic distinctions.

Moscowamerican (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding a section

I am interested in adding a section on the #WhoMadeMyClothes movement. It would be a concrete example of the campaigns taking place that are furthering the anti-sweatshop movement. I would describe the movement and its progress, why it started, who the key players are, and any criticisms of the movement. AprilGa91962893 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a bibliography for what I aim to include:

• Bartley, Tim, and Curtis Child. “Shaming the Corporation: The Social Production of Targets and the Anti-Sweatshop Movement.” American Sociological Review, vol. 79, no. 4, 2014, pp. 653–679. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43187558. Accessed 25 Feb. 2020.
• John Miller (2003) Why Economists Are Wrong About Sweatshops and the Antisweatshop Movement, Challenge,46:1, 93-122, DOI: 10.1080/05775132.2003.11034187
• https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/high-price-fashion
• https://apnews.com/32a6999825f44d3b869e62f2718a10af/'Amazing-China'-documentary-more-fiction-than-fact?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter
• Ballinger, Jeff. “No Sweat? Corporate Social Responsibility and the Dilemma of Anti-Sweatshop Activism.” New Labor Forum, vol. 17, no. 2, 2008, pp. 91–98. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40343002. Accessed 25 Feb. 2020.

AprilGa91962893 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article is overall well structured, detailed and easy to follow. Below are some comments/feedbacks that I would like to provide to further improve this article. 1. The History section: While this include good content overall, the tone of the writing is rather informal and non-encyclopedic. This could be mitigated by avoiding certain words/phrasing and taking a more neutral standpoint to the issue. Avoiding descriptive language could also help improve the tone. 2. Criticisms of Sweatshops: Good! Personally, I believe that criticism is a very important aspect of any movement article. The team could expand on this a little more to provide an insight into the other side of the story, since especially for sweatshops, there are many views and stances especially from intersectional, financial, and economical perspectives. 3. Criticism: A little confused why there is a section for criticisms of sweatshops and another section for criticisms (could combine them/differentiate them a little more). In terms of this section, while it is informative and scannable, I find the headlines non-encyclopedic (perhaps labeling it as opportunities, employment, economy instead of what is currently there might help) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanaonwiki (talk • contribs) 05:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is a really well-written article that shows how this issue has changed over time. I am impressed by how many figures, events, and organizations are involved in this movement, and the reporting of their contributions are mostly in a neutral tone. The "Effects" section is particularly interesting and impactful. Here are my suggestions for this article:

Lead

• I like the Lead section so far, but I think it can be expanded to give a broader overview of the entire article. For example, you can mention the fact that there are various multinational organizations and campaigns on and off line that support this movement.

Tone/Balance

• Be careful with the tone! Under "Contemporary anti-sweatshop movement" some of the wording can be viewed as biased. For example, "as it is incredibly easy for them to simply move to another country if the laws become too restricting" can be reworded to sound more neutral.
• In "Criticisms of Sweatshops", you mention Matt Zwolinski. Readers will want to know who he is and why he is a voice of authority in this movement. Generally, quoting individuals on Wikipedia can be risky. Terms like "most people" and "some economists" are also likely to be taken down. I suggest rewording these or being specific about who has these opinions and how these opinions contribute to the movement.

Content/Organization

• Adding short descriptions of the prominent figures in the movement can add some depth to the article.
• Would also love to hear more about the more modern movement activities

Sources

• The sources look good, be careful about using small news outlets or biased papers, consider the tone.

Media

• I am not sure if this article necessarily needs media, perhaps photos of the prominent figures or major movement events if they are relevant?

I hope this is helpful! Go-editors (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

1.I was really impressed with the history section -- I had no idea that sweatshops could have originated in the 19th century during the abolitionist movement because it was in some way connected to slavery. I don't think most people would make such a drastic association, so I like how the progression into sweatshops was explained.

2.Though I know the text and content of the article are the most important part of a Wikipedia article, I would suggest adding in some photos to the article as well. Adding in photos os sweatshops may help readers visualize what the conditions of a sweatshop are like, and visuals can speak louder than words in situations like this.

3. Adding a bit more context to the introduction may be helpful. I noticed that "sweatshop" actually was not defined in the introduction, so it's probably worth adding in an extra sentence that just simply defines what a sweatshop is.

Hope this feedback helps! Rani Zhu (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

Criticism of Sweatshop: I feel that this section of the article can be further elaborated. In the second sentence, it says that 'sweatshop laborers "choose" to work in sweatshops, this decision is not "fully voluntary"'. It should be explained why or how the decision is not fully voluntary such as how laborers are tricked into working there if that is the case.

Criticism: The sentence structure of the first sentence is weak. Instead of 'because sweatshops signify the start of an industrial revolution in Asia and offer people a path towards making money and escaping poverty that would otherwise not be available to them', it should be 'because sweatshops signify the start of an industrial revolution in Asia, offer people a path towards making money and escaping poverty. All of these would otherwise not be available to them.'

These two sections should be named differently because readers can get confused which of the criticisms are geared toward the movement and the sweatshops themselves. Markowijaya (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

The lead on this article is very short and concise, quickly introducing the theme and beginnings of the movement. However, I think the lead could benefit from an additional sentence that tells the main focus of the article - the modern movement. This article reviews the reason behind anti-sweatshop movement well, but could elaborate on the movement itself. Firstly, it has two criticism sections that need to be condensed into one complete section. I went ahead and corrected some grammatical errors for clarity in the first "criticism" section, but putting the two together would make the most sense. At the end of the "history" section, the phrase, "as it is incredibly easy" is a value statement with biased implication. To be more neutral, this phrase should be adjusted. The final sentence in the "contemporary" section is lengthy and could be rephrased for clarification. The article relies on only a few sources for its content. With a quick search on google, I discovered there exists a large number of trusted publications on the anti-sweatshop movement around the world which could be used to expand this article. Helen Pope (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation

LEAD: The article lead is effective as it is short, objective, and on topic. However, I believe the lead is missing some key details regarding this topic. For instance, mentioning the movement's prominent campaigners, founders, or supporting organizations can develop the audience's understanding of the movement.

CONTENT/ORGANIZATION: The article's content is relevant and updated, and well organized. I also think it is a fantastic idea to add a section relating the article to the #WhoMadeMyClothes movement and Fashion Revolution, as appropriately written in your first draft. On top of this, there is room for more content in the article, which would make the article more informative and reliable. Examples include short descriptions for each Prominent Campaigner, and a Public Policy section that details the most important national/international policies against sweatshops.

TONE/BALANCE/NEUTRAL PERSPECTIVE: Although the tone of the article is generally neutral and objective for the most part, several small edits can be made. You should consider changing phrases such as "most economists" and "some advocates" as they imply uncertainty and bias. Your first draft also contains some loaded sentences, including "people remain skeptical of the movement's actions and consequences." Such phrases and sentences should be backed by credible sources and evidence.

SOURCES: The article uses an appropriate range of sources that avoid bias. However, some links appear to be broken and out of date. An example is "Talking 'Anarchy' with Chomsky" by The Nation, which is no longer available. Your first draft on the other hand contains up to date sources that are properly cited. Fantastic job!

MULTI-MEDIA: Using illustrations and pictures increases the understanding of the audience by adding a new channel of learning. The article is currently void of any visualizations, and I'm sure a picture of related organizations or prominent leaders would add to the article. Your idea of adding a picture of a #WhoMadeMyClothes poster from Creative Commons is an excellent way to improve this aspect of the article.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: Overall, the article is well-written and the proposed section to be added (#WhoMadeMyClothes) is well done. Several improvements including minor tone changes, photo additions, and source adjustments could make a large impact on the validity of the article. Lastly, an additional "Public Policy" or a more complete Prominent Campaigner section would make the article more informative.

Parouz (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)