User:Kassidiamos/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Whitewashing (beauty)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I find the idea of whitewashing very interesting. Oftentimes, I see it a lot on tv shows and in movies. I noticed that this article needed additional citations in certain areas such as the lead. I also noticed that the only global example was Japan which is certainly not the only place this issue is present. Other countries should be added to this area. There's also not that many public figure examples in this article. I think political figures should be added to this area. Lastly, I noticed the lead needs some work done to it to make it more neutral.

Evaluate the article
The lead of this article is definitely overly detailed in a few areas. It's a bit too focused on the idea of blackface which isn't fully talked about in the body of the article. I believe this should have it's own category outside of the lead as the lead would flow better and be more neutral about the topic. There's also some citations missing from the lead which need to be added. The content of the article is relevant to the actual topic. I just think it's incomplete and doesn't cover all aspects of beauty. The content is up to date in some areas but, some example are from 2008 while there's numerous current 2022 examples readily available. The topic does relate to underrepresented groups as it focused on minorities within Japan and also African Americans. The tone of the article is neutral outside of the lead which is not. The article is not heavily biased towards a specific stance. Some viewpoints from other countries and other minorities are lacking in this article. The viewpoints described of minorities are accurate but incomplete. I don't. think the article is trying to persuade readers to think or feel a certain way. All of the facts are not backed up by sources in the article. Many sources are missing. The source are also a bit out of date with the most recent one being in 2017. The sources are written by a diverse group of authors. However, there's better sources out there that are more reliable and current. The article is well written and easy to follow the flow outside of the lead only. The grammar and spelling of the article seems to be okay. The article is broken down into sections but, some sections could be separated even more into sub sections. The article has no images. The last conversation was from 2020 on the Talk Page. The conversation was just about what they're going to do to edit the page and how the page editing works. There's no real conversation on the topic itself going on. It says this article is apart of at least 3 Wiki Foundation Education projects. I don't see where or how the article is rated on any of the pages. The articles overall status Is good but it could use a bit more information to make it better. The articles strength is the popular examples category. The article can be improved with the lead, citations, and global examples. I think the article is underdeveloped but what's on the article is meaningful. It's just incomplete.