User:Katie McCabe/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cosmetics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
As a Professional Makeup Artist I believe there are a lot of misconceptions within the cosmetics industry and therefore believe it is important that credible, reliable knowledge is easily accessible.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section of the article does a good job of defining the topic while also bringing to light many misconceptions about what deems a product as a "cosmetic". Although the article highlights that what is deemed as "cosmetics" is not the same across different countries it only goes into detail with what America has deemed as cosmetics. It does not include enough of an overview of all of the sub-sections in the article, and therefore I would argue it is not sufficient enough at headlining all of the topics it tends to discuss.

Content: Overall the articles content is relevant to the topic, however, there are certain sub-sections that are longer than others and therefore indicates that quite a bit of information is missing. As well, the animal testing section needs information that is up to date. In fact a lot of the date's I am seeing that are most recent is 2016 and therefore could be updated to 2020 information, 2019 at least. As mentioned above this article is heavily focused on cosmetics in America and only briefly discusses Brazil, and Europe and chunks every other country into "International". This article could therefore benefit from diving into cosmetics all over the globe with the same detail put into American cosmetics.

Tone and Balance: Overall it is fairly neutral, however the ingredients section leans towards mineral makeup being overall better for oneself, and does not include any possible breakouts/ allergic reactions that can come from any form of cosmetics, not non mineral based. There is a reason brands are no longer allowed to say they hypoallergenic, as everyone's skin can react to products differently, what might work for one does not always work for another.

Sources and References: Although the majority of the sources and references seem to come from creditable sources, there are few that do not. For example, https://www.badscience.net/category/cosmetics/ There are however a great variety of authors as well as different types of sources.

Organization and Writing Quality: Overall the organization of the article is great, starting with the history of cosmetics and working its way down to different career paths within the industry. The writing seems to be concise and well articulated.

Images and Media: Although there are some photos throughout the article I would argue that they need to be updated and that there could be more photos to enhance the article. For instance under the sub-section "Brushes" there could be a photo indicating what each brush listed looks like. The majority of images (to me) are lack lustre and seem quite dated.

Talk Page Discussion: This page indicates some great ways in which this article could improve. As mentioned above it should dive into the different ways cosmetics are used around the world, not just based solely on American culture. There is a point on here that suggests a sub-section of "cosmetics for men", however I believe this insinuates that any of the other cosmetics listed are not appropriate for males, thus sending the wrong message. Rather it could focus on cosmetics across genders, or something along the lines of inclusivity. Drag is a huge part of cosmetics industry and a lot of product influence has come from that world and therefore I believe this article could benefit from a sub-section dedicated to that.

Overall Impressions: Overall this article is a great starting point for an article that has the potential to be great. As mentioned above there are many ways in which this article can improve, such as more recent up to date information (photos included). Taking a look at the Talk Page discussion and implementing the majority of ideas posed there is a great start. But as stated, there is much more to cosmetics than this article has laid out and therefore requires a significant amount of time and effort in order to get all information out there. I would not say this article is poorly developed, as the information is quite extensive, rather it is simply under developed as there are many more aspects (Drag for example) that influence cosmetics and the cosmetics industry. I believe the rating of a c- in the Talk Page discussion is an accurate reflection of the current information throughout the article.