Talk:Western cosmetics in the 1970s
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Next steps for research
- 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.
Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
- 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.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- It is stable.
- 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: