Talk:Sex in advertising/Archives/2018

Unclear sentence in section on condoms ads in New Zealand
In this section we read "The campaign has been successful, with a 12% in new HIV infections among MSM in New Zealand". A 12% what - increase (I hope not), or decrease (as the description "successful" suggests)? I leave it to the author to insert the correct word, but one is quite clearly needed. Another question is whether a single advertising campaign can be proved to have influenced HIV incidence by the frankly rather small rate of 12%.80.60.103.23 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

beauty standards
In the "physical attractiveness" section I think there could be a bit more on how the advertising industry creates unrealistic beauty standards for women to maintain. This is an effect of advertising which isn't entirely honest (using unrealistic models who are often heavily photoshopped). In turn, this is what leads people to feel insecure because they judge themselves against these "ideal"images.

citation: Alyssa Dana Adomaitis, Kim P. Johnson, (2008) "Advertisements: interpreting images used to sell to young adults", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 Issue: 2, pp.182-192, https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020810874872 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.150.204 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Link to Lynx
Hello! I am a university student working on a Wikipedia project for a media literacy course. I'm learning how Wikipedia works and how edits and contributions are made, and would appreciate help/advice. (And I'm starting small)

I decided to start by checking links in this article and found under the "Concept" heading that the link for "Lynx" the web browser actually links to the animal.

I'm going to (attempt to) change this link.

Acockett (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions and Comments
Hello! I've been making some minor changes to this article over the past few days, like references and typo fixes. As mentioned, I am a university student who is in a course about media literacy. We were assigned a project where we learned about Wikipedia and how it works, and were assigned an article to edit and critique. After looking through and working on this article, I've drawn some conclusions. I hope to make some more noticeable changes to this article, and also I hope some of you fellow Wikipedians help me do so. Here's what I found:

Some suggestions I have for the strengthening of this article include a reworking of the article's organization, a change in the Lead, and making minor changes in spelling and grammar/looking for typos which are littered throughout the article.

The organization of this article is confusing. The sections/headings and their subsections are strange to me. The "Effectiveness" section houses "Effective Use", "Ineffective Use", "Gender Differences", and "Cultural Differences". The second two subtopics should be in a different category than "Effectiveness", probably a new heading like "Gender Concerns". The Skyy Vodka example is found under "Criticisms" and the "History" section is actually just a list of examples as well. There should be a heading "Examples" which would have these listed as opposed to throwing examples in randomly.

The Lead in this article is made of three paragraphs, two of which are fine. However, the second paragraph's language makes me question if close paraphrasing was used in the creation. The author of that paragraph might just have that type of writing style, but because the reference cited is a book that I do not have access to, I can't check for plagiarism, whether it would be accidental or intentional.

Finally, the article itself seems to be made up of several rushed edits and additions. There are typos and spelling mistakes throughout the article. I fixed a few, but those types of mistakes are hard to spot and I was focusing on the bigger picture of the article. Some time needs to be taken to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb.

While this article isn't "bad", strong isn't a word to describe it either. It just needs some time, effort, and patience by Wikipedians, including myself. I've become invested and might just end up spending some of my free time in this article.

Acockett (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Great input, I too noticed some minor typos scattered throughout the existent article. Did you add any original content or just edit the content already there? I definitely feel the article needs a more in depth background of information regarding sex in advertising. Your suggestions are beneficial but the overall article needs more work. Eboch (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You did a good job of making revisions in the article. You had many suggestions that could be useful in making the article more accurate and flow more smoothly. S0316294 (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)s0316294, Jannae Young