User talk:Inarvaez/sandbox

So far, so good. There is a lot of really good information on this page! However a lot of information and quotes needs to be cited and footnotes need to be working. There is a bit of bias here and there. For instance the first sentence mentions how that African American portrayal in media is a major concern in mainstream American culture, this statement either has to be rewritten or cited. Also minstrelsy should be defined for those who may not know the meaning. Also the including of images for Little Black Sambo and coon caricature would be helpful to get your point across. For the MOTF it could be added when they were created and examples of what they have done recently. The section on Metro Broadcasting v. FCC could be expanded and made a little more clear on its impact on African Representation in media. Horror movies had good content however it was written more in essay format, take out your voice, the use of I, and any mention of our class this will be published on wikipedia for everyone to view so just keep that in mind, good points mentioned though, also not all foot notes worked. For the Representation of African American LGBTQ For the SRI surveys I think you can just focus on 2013 and 2016 statistics for the film and television and broadcast and cable, that way to not lose focus on the point your making, too much data can easily become a bunch of numbers. For the digital Blackface, I think it can be mentioned why there are colored emojis to begin with (ie their purpose) and when they came into use. Present the view how they can be seen as inclusive then juxtapose with the current info to show both sides. Overall really good information and points, can even possibly mention African American modeling/advertisement- and beauty standards i.e. lighter skinned models preferred or represented etc. Also could move television section above LGBTQ.Aabifarah (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)aabifarah

Kathleen's peer review
There's definitely a lot of good information on this page! And from looking at the sources that are referenced, y'all are pulling from some strong and diverse sources which is equally great!

There are a few points on Aabifarah's peer review that I agree with. The sentence on African American representation in media as a major concern is an arguable point in that while there are groups who acknowledge lack of representation as a concern, African American representation in media is not considered a 'major concern' for various reasons. Citing a scholar/academic piece that writes about African American representation in media as a major concern would make the sentence less biased to a student who knows about the lack of rep in media. Or removing 'major' and including references to works that address African American representation in media in the footnotes would also add some support to the claim and make it more encyclopedic and less like an argument for a paper. Also, removing some of the pronouns throughout the article would help the article less personal and more encyclopedic.

Having more information about and references for the ownership diversity paragraph in the same section (Representations of African Americans in Media) would also be helpful just so that we know where both the idea and debate mentioned come from.

In the Examples of misrepresentation of African American's section, I googled 'black English' because I didn't know what it was, but AAVE (African American Vernacular English) came up and is a term I am familiar with; the wikipage also mentioned Black English. So, I think adding the hyperlink for that wiki page might be helpful for others who don't know what black English is but know other terms like AAVE or BEV/BVE (Black English Vernacular/Black Vernacular English).

Structurally, the layout of the article makes sense and is easy to follow. For the Horror Movies section, chunking the paragraph would help balance the point of the section and also make it less daunting to read through. Same goes for the data/percentage section of the LGBT representation section. I think Aabifarah's suggestion is a good one, using the data and percentages from only 2 years make it easier to get through. I got the feeling that the point of the section was to show the changes in representation over time, so focusing on the first and last years would provide enough info to showcase a change and room for more progress.

All in all, the page is coming together nicely and the points/sections all have good, relevant info! Ok96grace (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Kalyssa's Review
Kalyssahawkins (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC) There is a lot of important and useful information you guys have found. As media definitely surrounds us constantly and is always influencing what we perceive to be “normal”, I think it’s crucial for POC and non-POC to see how Blacks are portrayed and the consequences of those portrayals. I especially think the section on Horror movies, Black women in media, and LGBTQ POC are very interesting. However, in my opinion I think that some of the sections could be rearranged for a better (more chronologic) flow. Here is my suggestion below. Contents
 * 2Representation of Black People in Media
 * 4Representations of African American People in Media
 * 4.1Examples of misrepresentation of African Americans
 * 4.2Reasons for Misrepresentations
 * 4.2.1Working in the Media
 * 4.2.2Stereotypes
 * 4.10Adding on to examples...
 * 4.10.1Stereotypical roles of African American Men in the Media Notes:
 * 4.10.2Stereotypical roles of African American Women in the Media Notes:
 * 4.10.3Stereotypical roles that both African American men and women play in the media:
 * 4.8Blackface and Minstrelsy
 * 4.5Horror Movies
 * 4.6Representation of Black/African American LGBTQ Characters
 * 4.7Representation of African American Women
 * 4.8.1"Digital Blackface"
 * 4.9Television
 * 4.2.3Ownership
 * 4.3Minority Ownership Task Force
 * 4.4Metro Broadcasting v. FCC

The use of first person should be eliminated as much as possible so that the article can remain a neutral sum of the research you all have done. For example, in the horror movie section there is a sentence “After doing more research on Blaxploitation I came across an article on JSTOR entitled, "Badass Supermama Meets Foxy Brown…”, instead of saying “I came across an article” it could just read “In a JSTOR article entitled, “Badass Supermama Meets Foxy Brown…” and then further describes Blaxploitation. Another instance where there is the same issue: “Upon reading this from the article, I realized that it brings up one of the points that we have brought up throughout this course which is the term known as "Double-Consciousness" which was created by WEB Du Bois. First person should be eliminated, and if you want to include the fact that it was discussed in class it needs to be formally cited as a lecture. (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl shows how to cite lectures)

Besides that really good job you guys. I found it to be very clear,very interesting, and for the most part very neutral information. Kalyssahawkins (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)