Talk:Artificial hair integrations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance within fashion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Article needs a fairly large grammatical and internal link overhaul, as well as expansions on the one-line topics. Gila m0bster 01:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed two paragraphs of the article pertaining to the disadvantages of human hair used for extensions and the benefits of monofiber over human hair. The paragraphs were actually misleading and incorrect, and the monofiber comparison was a form of advertising. I've seen human hair worked with on countless occasions and none of the problems the article cited were true. Gila m0bster 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the monofiber part is fairly obviously copied straight from a website. I'll make an overhaul of that segment after I do research on it. Gila m0bster 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Made changes, added information from a professional standpoint under 'hair weave'. Some wording is akward, would appreciate someone editing. Nblinknpark41 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Nblinknpark41
Removed the neutrality tag, did a major overhaul of bias-ed material in favor of professional, unbiased, encyclopedic-type information. Article has a long way to go, but it is looking better. Nblinknpark41 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] rename?
Maybe we should move this to Hair extensions or something similar?--Sonjaaa 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a lousy article. Not only is the title ridiculous, the tone is almost sarcastic, which leads me to question the veracity of the whole thing.
The entire article is written in a highly unprofessional manner, and no professional cosmetologist would ever refer to any of the subject matter as "fake hair". The most professional term is "artificial hair integrations". "Fake hair" makes a mockery of the subject matter and gives the impression of scorn and disdain towards the whole idea of wearing hair that isn't your own. For the record, 'artificial' covers both synthetic and human hair additions. I intend to try my best to move things around and edit as best I can, but I can't be the only cosmetologist on Wikipedia that knows even the most basic things about artificial hair integrations. I suggest the article be renamed Artificial hair. There's so much more about it than glamour. What about wigs for cancer patients? Locks of love? Alopecia? Medications and scalp disorders that involve hairloss, and common cosmetological remedies? There are so many tie-ins that can be made. The title really needs to change. Nblinknpark41 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Renamed. Nblinknpark41 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hot Strands
The products of the company "Hot Strands" are mentioned three times in three consecutive sentences (no other product is mentioned in the whole article), so I'll be bold and remove the sentences. If you disagree, please discuss! --Tail 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that the references, as well as external links to the company's page, were added by a single user, Susikenna, and that this is the only article he/she has contributed to.
- I didn't remove the external links, but I think that all of them also need revising, so that only the informative ones ar kept (if there are any). --Tail 13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not enough information
I've recently had hair extensions done, while on holiday in another country. They are real human hair, and look great, but as I didn't understand the language of my hairdresser, I don't know what type of extensions were done! I've recently gone to a salon in the country that I live, but they didn't have a clue either! I started searching the web, but none of the information is very helpful. It's defenitely not any of the types (weaving/braiding/ waxing, etc) mentioned on Wikepedia. My extensions are different. They were glued in and have a little plastic tube cover(or is it extra glue?) of approx 1cm. I think the information on hair extensions on Wikepedia should be updated by a more knowledgable person! My extensions would probably have to grow out in the meantime, as no one has the knowledge on removing them!
I doubt anyone who's posted information in the article is an actual hairdresser, who would actually *know* that the information in the article is crap. FYI. Nblinknpark41 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)nblinknpark41
Hey you I read an article about this type of extending in the belgian newspaper HLN years ago, it was new then, never knew if it broke through
[edit] Wikify
I added a wikify tag to the top of this article. The main reason I did is because the current layout (or lack thereof) makes it look like just a list and not an encyclopedia article. Robotman1974 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect to Toupee, or take Toupee content, replace current content and redirect Toupee?
The Toupee page was for a long time a fairly "fun" article with "OK", but not great content. It's now in fairly good shape, and is probably more appropriate than this article. Any ideas about what or how should be done to make this page tie to Toupee, or vice versa? Matthewdkaufman 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just add a see also link to toupee. RJFJR 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Resource Links
Removed the following links offering "resources" which were predominantly more commercial in intent. Their resources pertain more to exemplifying the particular services they offer or were thin on content:
mohairextensions.com - commercial
hairextensionsoutlet.com - commercial
redirected hairextensionguide.com from their commercial front page to their resource page
http://www.hairextensionguide.com/hairextensions.htm, deleted "Exhaustive" and replaced with "Thorough list of installation techniques and descriptions"
http://www.hairextensioninfo.net/ blog format with commercial index, thin on content.. "gothic hair extensions" and "hair" were resourceful in intent but aren't really the focus of this article.. gothic is a fashion subculture which i'm sure is represented adequately on WP, and the hair info was from WP.
hairtrade.com - commercial site, no tutorials apparent, contrary to claim
I'm adding the tutorial section from Doctored Locks (which was removed??). I'll disclose that I work for Doctored Locks, and our tutorial section is educational in intent and is of extremely high quality. While our store is accessible from the tutorials, it is not so in a manner which subverts the intent or utilitarianism of a tutorials page.
baccaruda66 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
