User:Kas1017/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating an article on Digital fashion.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I really like fashion, and especially online shopping. I think digital fashion started off innocently and as a way for designers to get creative with their designs without using as many outside materials. However, I also believe many times when shopping online, images are altered to mislead buyers into thinking they are ordering one item when, in reality, they are getting another. I feel it is important that online shoppers know about this issue so they can be more cautious and are not deceived when purchasing items online.

Evaluate the article
The article's introduction is concise and to the point, however, there are some points discussed in the article that are not mention in the introduction like glamification and digital fashion education and research. The article's topic is up to date as it mentions the changes in the fashion industry since the COVID-19 pandemic. There could be more content talking about communication and experience co-creation. I do not think it was discussed enough if at all how digital fashion has been used on some online sites to promote clothes that are either not as good in quality or completely different. The tone of the article is neutral however, there points that are more developed than others. The amount of citations and sources used in the 'Digital textile printing' section of the article is scarce even though it seems to be the section with the most information. There are still a great amount of sources throughout the rest of the article and the links work. There are good differentiations between sections in the article with good grammar. There is only one picture on this article when I think there should be more, but the one picture does have a caption to accompany it. The article is C-class and is labeled mid-importance. There is not much discussion on the talk page so there is still work to be done with editing it. Overall, the article is not poorly developed, but it does still need help. There are strong section topics, but more content to be added to some of them. It could be more developed and with more people contributing to editing it.