User:AidanCOMM2311/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Fashion

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Fashion is interesting. I saw another peer as there selected article and wished I spoke about it! Super interesting topic and relates to the topic of mine social media advertising. I enjoy seeing fashion and the evolution over time, a fascinating topic.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Began with a Label of "Definition of Fashion", but really just said what the definition was and went over history when there is already an entire section on it. I believe that the lead could have had more on the philosophy that was mentioned instead of bringing up the history. The lead had a small section of the art of fashion when I believe the definition should have covered more and some originals of the development of the art. Little coverage of the artistic values of fashion within the article even being mentioned in the main. The lead is not very concise rolling off into quotes of designers that are unnecessary and almost irrelevant.

Overall, the content follows the article page and does go into depth of topics mentioned. I believe some of the sections are irrelevant such as the non world wide section of African Americans in Fashion; this should be used in American Fashion not fashion in general does not really have much to do with fashion but ethics. Something that should be argued not written in a Wikipedia page. The tone of another section called "Controversial topics" is very one sided and only gives examples instead of providing research, how, why and when. The sources are up to date if you consider 1990-2019 current. Also the article really only described or showed images of women's fashion and not as general as you would think.

Overall, the article is good but there is updating such as deleting sections and editing some content to make it universal and general less one sided.