User:Ama069/EvaluatingMyArticlesandbox

Evaluating Content
The article has some fluid parts and some choppy parts. The beginning of the article starts off very strong, but the rest of the article falls to a lower standard.The first two sections, Definition and features, and Natural hair: History of Afro-descendants are very thorough, relaying general information about the subject. They really give an explanation of the movement as a whole. As you read on to the section of "The natural hair movement today," it really just becomes a list of references and examples with links. Rather than talking about the different sources that fuel the movement and giving us information about the general content we would encounter using these references, the article simply lists them and their origins. At the same time, the inclusion of the actual sources of the movement is good for a general reference if you're doing research about the subject. This Wikipedia page gives a lot different websites, movies, and videos about natural hair. There are a lot of pictures and visuals for this article. While in itself the pictures are great, it should be pictures of different natural hair styles, or general products used instead of random famous black people with natural hair. The volume of these pictures does illustrate the notion of natural hair excelling to the public, but just mentioning the names of these artists could just as easily made the point. These visuals are kinda distracting to the rest of the article. I also believe the section that mentions the issue with Kim Kardashian with the Fulani braids went into too much detail for this article. It was as if this was the article's main proof of the claim that there is controversy of the natural hair movement, even though the article gave many other examples to support it.

Evaluating Tone
On the talk page, there was a editor who believed this article to be very biased and even claimed this whole article is written more as persuasive article than an objective one. Personally I don't see it to that exact extreme. There are a couple of claims that do go unsupported that seems to try to create a certain point of view. If these few instances were to be corrected I believe the rest of the article would be a salvageable base to create a more objective article.There is a huge underlining argument discussing the oppressed nature of African American culture. This is understandable because it is an aspect of the natural hair movement, but it isn't the ONLY view. There isn't much about the positive side of this movement. I also think there should be an expansion on information about where the movement derived from. The article relies too heavily on a single documentary as their answer to why the natural hair movement rebooted into the 21st century.

Evaluating Sources
There are many citations and links in this article.It seems like most of the information derives from popular resource articles. This is understandable because in the article, it is mentioned how most people gather their information about natural hair by following the media and relying on other people whose already done it. That being said, through this project I found references that are more reliable and educational. So the information is out there. There are a lot of claims that go unsupported as well. The article seems to draw conclusions from "facts" that have no origin. For example, before I edited it, there was a mention of "political hair." Upon light research, I didn't find any real definition for that phrase. I am not even sure if its talking about straight hair, because its more acceptable to the public, or natural hair because the movement itself is making a political statement. Not all the facts are backed up with evidence and reference. Some references that are included are unnecessary or biased towards one side.

Checking the Talk Page
The very first post on the talk page is to nominate this article for deletion. This isn't surprising because there is a lot of issues with this article, this body of work isn't formatted in the way Wikipedia policies encourage.This is one of the reasons why I chose this article, because it gives me a lot of different things to try to fix. There is one person on the talk page wondering if she can put pictures of her own hair on the Wikipedia page. But she doesn't explain why or for what purpose and there are already too many irrelevant pictures as it is. It seems like this person is using this page more of a blog than an encyclopedia.There are some question raised with some of the terminology without references as well. Which I tried to help answer with some of my editing. The last entry before mine was very recent, April 8th 2019. This entry had a huge problem with the article. It gives many instances of bias and says the article is moving more into an editorial position. This Wiki page is rated as a Start class page and is apart of a couple of different wiki projects including WikiProject African diaspora, Fashion, and Women. The people on this talk page aren't really talking to each other, but making changes on their own and then saying why. Some make an effort to just discuss the issue before making changes, but they get no replies which is unhelpful. In Class we talked about how the discussion is a very important part about editing a Wikipage.