Talk:Western cosmetics in the 1970s
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Jackturner3 in topic GA Review
 | Western cosmetics in the 1970s was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 19, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that violent, porno-chic fashion photography in French and Italian Vogue influenced the sexualized glamor of western cosmetics in the 1970s? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Next steps for research
edit- Corson, Richard. Fashions in makeup, from ancient to modern times. London, Owen, 2003. ISBN 0720611954. (Widener WID-LC GT2340 .C67 2003.)
- Face Value: The Politics of Beauty, By Robin Tolmach Lakoff, Raquel L. Scherr. p100-101.
GA Review
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused): 
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I’ll go out on a limb and admit that I know very little about cosmetics, and perhaps my evaluation of this article is demonstrating that, but I have to wonder if there isn’t something more that could be said about the subject. The article is supposed to cover an entire decade. I simply wonder if more detail couldn’t be teased out of the short prose that is presented. For example, the article gives a broad overview of how marketing of cosmetics changed in the 70s, and it gives a basic idea of why, but it doesn’t really talk about the process of how the changes were implemented except on a very superficial level. Now, maybe I’m wrong and this is all that can be said about cosmetics in this decade, but I have a feeling that I’m not mistaken. In my opinion, this article needs some expansion, further exploration of the general overview that is provided by taking the reader into the specific details of the subject. My recommendation is for the editors to go back through the article, see what “threads” are laying about, and enhance the amount of detail related to those threads. Otherwise, the article is very strong; the images are good, the sourcing is quite good, and the prose is laudable as well. It’s just that the devil, as they say, is in the details, and unfortunately, I don’t feel there are sufficient details to promote the article at this time. jackturner3 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
