User talk:Slominski/Androgyny in fashion

I like your proposed additions to the page, but I'm having trouble seeing exactly what is supported by which references. Do you plan to put in the citations properly? Also, try writing sentences with more flow to them, rather than putting each piece of information in its own sentence. It feels a little bit jarring to read as it is. Undeemiss (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a really cool and interesting topic and appreciate the fact that you have so much information you want to add to the page. A few things that I noticed were that it doesn't really seem clear which parts of the text are straight facts from your sources and which statements are you drawing conclusions based on the facts that you read. Since this is Wikipedia and they have such strict publishing rules I don't think anything that could be interpreted as you forming an opinion or personal analysis based on facts is technically allowed to be published on the site. I think it would also help the flow of the information if you kept entire sections in one tense. It ends up reading a little bit choppy if you have past/present ideologies or styles of fashion in the same paragraph and keep referencing different periods in time. If you wanted you could do clear cut sections such as the history of gendering in fashion and current gendering in fashion so that its easier to follow you through the transition of fashion's evolution. I think you could then just include the rise of androgynous fashion as another main category where you describe what ungendered fashion is followed by sub categories for specific areas like pop culture/high fashion/general public. I also felt like some of the sections were a bit biased just in the fact that I could tell you were a woman writing about women feeling empowered which is great but this is pretty much just supposed to be like reading an encyclopedia with information and no emotional draw. I could tell in some parts you would over elaborate on a fact that you really wanted to audience to understand the feeling behind instead of just stating it. I know it's boring to write like a robot but I think you should treat this more like writing a scientific paper than an English paper just because your audience is going to be factual encyclopedia snobs when it goes up for publishing. Other than that I think you have a lot of good information and I really enjoyed reading, I would just add the rest of the stuff you are wanting (if nothing else I think the pop culture stuff would be really cool) and then do a solid proofread and you're set.

Side note: I think you have to have embedded citations in this which you can do by just using the cite your sources button at the bottom of the page. You just literally insert the citation like www.reference.com<-/ref> at the end of the sentence that you need to cite and it will just show up as a small number once you leave the text box instead of the whole link/citation (I added two unnecessary dashes to that one so it would show up normal without the little number formatting but the little one at the end of this sentence is what it will look like). Then all of the references will be held at the end of the article and you don't have to re-type them all in for a separate bibliography section. (if you already knew how to do that sorry for over explaining it just took me a few tries to figure out so I thought id share in case you were also lost). Great article! Morgan such (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Morgan Such — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.126.130 (talk)

Peer Review Silence slay

I really did enjoy your notes, seeing as though the original was so undeveloped I can tell the effort you put into it. However, similar to the other peer review above, I did wish there were more references to citations. More statistical evidence to the claims you've made would do the article a lot of good. I think you could benefit from rewording information as to sound more neutral. I would try Grammarly, it's a writing editor free on chrome. It can sense the tone of a passage, I used this for my article. I think because this topic was underdeveloped you could go to a lot of different routes. I would try giving for information that is revelevent to the passage that contracts with your views as to facilitate the neutral tone that the passage should be. I think maybe paraphrasing some sentences through the high fashion/ general info could help set up more of a neutral tone since I sense the most biased in those areas. all in all, you definitely put down alot of info that helps the article. I think focusing the information to be for explanatory would do the artcke justice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silenceslay (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)