User:Sydneyoscott/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Lipstick feminism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I think a lot of aspects of feminism are misunderstood. This is especially true when it comes to the various waves of feminism and the different types of feminism that have emerged over the last few decades. I chose Lipstick feminism because I honestly didn't know what that term meant. I thought that it would have something to do with femininity possibly because lipstick is makeup and makeup often represents more feminine energy. After reading the article and other sources about lipstick feminism and gaining a stronger understanding of it I decided to evaluate this article because I believe more information could be added to this article. Also after going through some of the Wiki training course and reading the criteria for evaluating articles I felt like I understood how to give good feedback for an article like this.

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.)

Lead section: The lead section of the article was not very strong. The first sentence was confusing and someone clicking on the article and reading the first sentence would not have a clear or even basic understanding of what Lipstick feminism is. I just thought it was very confusing and the punctuation and wording made it even harder to understand. After the first paragraph of the lead section someone reading would have an understanding of how lipstick feminism is different than traditional feminism. I felt like this part could be expanded on a lot because there is a reason why lipstick feminism exists and because it departs from what people think about when they think of traditional feminism. The author briefly mentioned two individuals, Zora Neale Hurston and Emma Goldman in the lead section. However, I couldn't easily tell why they were included in this section of the article and I felt like their piece of this puzzle wasn't expanded on enough. The last paragraph of the lead section introduced us to the next section of the article and wrapped up the earlier conversation about 2nd wave feminism.

Language section: This section of the article was introduced by the final paragraph of the lead section. This language section was very short and this is the section that I felt like could really be expanded on further. The author talked about how the word "Slut" fits into the movement and how taking back that word is empowering for lipstick feminists, however I feel like there are more words and phases that fit into the Lipstick feminist movement. Especially after I did more research I felt like the language section could have been stronger and had more sources and information. The author briefly mentioned why the world Lipstick is used, but there was not much information and I feel like that is a really important aspect of a language section.

Philosophy section: The philosophy section of the article was the best section of the article because I got the most understanding of the topic from this section. The author did a good job of talking about how traditional feminists feel and react to lipstick feminism and why lipstick feminism exists. This part of the article addressed common feminist tropes that got attached to feminist during the 2nd wave of feminism such as not shaving their legs or wearing more masculine clothing. This part is important because the readers of the article can understand the philosophy behind Lipstick feminism.

Stiletto feminism section: This section was the shortest section of the whole article. I felt like Stiletto feminism was an important definition to have in an article, however the section itself wasn't very informative and I wonder if it even needed its own section.

Content: Compared to other Wikipedia articles that I have read I felt like this article needed more content and there was some areas that could have had more details and information. The guidelines say a good article covers all important aspects of the topic without putting too much weight on one section. I felt like the article did a good job of not putting too much weight on one section and linking or including other articles where information could be further expanded upon. In an article about Lipstick feminism it would probably help the reader if they understood the history and significance of the feminist movement and the different waves of feminism, however if the author would have expanded on all that in this article then the focus would not be as much on lipstick feminism specifically. There are more examples of lipstick feminism in pop culture and media than just in the two movies that the author of the article listed, so that section could be updated to include more examples.

Tone and balance: I felt like the article did have a neutral tone and did a good job remaining neutral. After reading the article you get an informative tone. I feel like while discussing any aspect of feminism and when discussing the feminist movement and its history it is important to discuss how non white women experience that aspect of feminism and those parts of history. In the lead paragraph the author mentions Zora Neale Hurston who is a very famous author who wrote an extremely influential novel called "Their Eyes were watching God" which is a novel that deals with masculinity, femininity and sexuality. I felt like Hurston was just kinda lumped into this article with the other author that was listed right after her and the article could have expanded on why she was included in the article a little more. When the author mentioned the "Slutwalk" and how that fits into Lipstick feminism I felt like author could have mentioned that it was women of color, like Amber Rose, who led the way in creating a movement like that.

Sources and references: The only critique I have as far as sources is that the sources could have been more recent. Most of the sources were from the very early 2000s and the most recent source was from 2015. The sources were somewhat diverse, but they were all credible and there was a variety of sources.

Organization and writing quality: Honestly I think this was one of the bigger issues in the article. There were a lot of issues with word choice and a lot of the sentences were confusing. I also felt like the sections could have split up and organized better.

Images and media: There is only one picture in the article and the picture is a white woman standing in fish net stockings. I feel like there could have been more media and pictures to create more diversity and better showcase what lipstick feminism actually means and represents.

Talk page: The talk page had some of the same critiques that I had a

ut the article. It is confusing for anyone who doesn't already have a very strong sense of what feminism is and the history of the feminist movement. o