User talk:KennyTharp/Players (magazine)

Peer review 10.02.22
I don't like the lead, I think it's definitely too polarizing and not a factual display of the topic. The lead says "it's attempt at providing the African-American public with a racy, yet elegant reading choice" You can not accurately say something is for a population that the creators are not actively involved in. Two white men were not providing a service to the African American public, they were providing it for the public that enjoys viewing African Americans. I would like more elaboration on how Holloway House "struck gold" through the African-American underworld. The way it references gold diggers, would be good to hyperlink to the wikipedia article one of our classmates is working on! I think this also references too many individual names people don't know, could be better included as a completed list in the bottom. This article needs media, preferably a cover of one of the magazines. There's definitely a lot of sourcing you can find here! With black pornography, as well as bios on some of the participants. Especially the white men who created it! I think the people of this need to be highlighted more because it's crazy a magazine was made for people of color by white men. Finally, the article ending in hypersexuality could highly benefit on the education on fetishism of color. You can use more sourcing from Miller-Young's book, or our previous book from class. Karleeseek (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Karlee's advise is fantastic, the only addition I have is to think about ways you can engage with the visuals in the magazine in the article, both for purposes of understanding the magazine and to give the audience a visual touchpoint for what you are talking about.
 * Also, the hypersexuality section is greatly need. In addition to using the books we have read in class you could also search through their references and index pages for other works that more directly touch on the content of the article you are looking at. Bem2c4 (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for all this info! There's a lot of good stuff in there, and I plan on using some of these things. I have discussed the lead with another review, but I am also in agreeance that the lead needs to be reworked. I also never considered the lack of media, and I completely agree that adding to can only help. I need to relearn how to make the links look good, so thanks for the reminders/tips! KennyTharp (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
Lead: Though clear and concise, the lead does not overview the content later discussed in the article. Content: I think the content is missing information, in particular, I think it would be important to discuss how and why the magazine's shift in content (ie. removing its original political, artistic, and historical themes) reflects the dominant images projected onto Black men. The article references A Taste for Brown Sugar but I think it should include some information about what Young says about the magazine specifically. I think that the media representation section is too general. It leaves me wondering what the negative images this magazine portrays about Black men are. Kailynhill721 (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you, I do believe that the lead needs some punch up. I definitely think that it needs a rebranding. I have some ideas, however so do my teammates so I think we should come together to guess which way is the best way to go. I never considered how vital A Taste for Brown Sugar could be to this article as well, outside of what is mentioned in the page already. I will definitely re-explore some themes and idea from that book. I also want to take Playboy and compare and contrast from Player's magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennyTharp (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)