User talk:MTTorres/sandbox

Celia's Peer Review
I think this is a really important article, and you've done a great job. It seems like a really big task to help fix such an article, since it's a really broad topic.

Your lead is good because it it's doesn't highlight one thing over another. It's a little vague, but since the page covers so many aspects ofmedi and gender I think that's good. I would get rid of "this page explores" or at least not say it twice. I feel like most wikipedia pages don't give introductions of the page. Instead they introduce a topic. For example: Media and gender is the relationship between today's growing media and western concepts of gender.

As far as organization, I'm a little confused why Feminist Response is before In the 20th century, but it still works. I just feel like might make more sense if Feminist Response came after, because then the reader knows what the feminists are responding too. Normally I would actually say to put the In the 20th ce. section in the history section at the beginning, so we know the history before we get the facts, but I can see this page might be organized differently than that, and that the representation should go first as it's the most important part of the article. Actually looking at it again, I know you copied from the original article but you definitely need to clean it up so you don't have two history sections and so everything is in semi-chronological order.

You seem to be really good on both balance and neutrality. I can't wait to see what you add to the damsel in distress section and hope you might consider adding a few other common stock characters as a minor category.

Other than finish your additions, I can't think of many other changes you need. Clean the article up so your additions are seamless with the original article, mostly. Other than that, I think your golden! Ceradams (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex's Peer Review(sorry this is long)
Overall This looks great! The majority of your sources are strong. Just watch out for bias. I noticed that you would use phrases that would normally seem if in conversation or an essay but when used in Wikipedia they come off as biased. Also, there are sections that sound like your own opinion on a subject rather than your report from your sources. The language in section could be cleaned up to be more concise and clear. Keep formatting consistent. For example, in one section you spelt out per cent instead of using “%”. Below are more of my specific comments and questions about you article. Great job!

Lead -Remove "this page" in the second sentence. Use it so its not as repetitive. Make sure to proof read. The occasional extra word or a the that didn't need to be there. -Possibly change "gender representation in media is not" to "gender representations are not limited"

Gender disparity in Media careers -"The Bechdel test, originally created to evaluate popular fiction's representation of women and subsequently adapted to employment in the media professions, show that a number of women are employed but do not benefit from an equal voice. For example, women's presence on radio is typically hired to cover topics such as weather and culture." - Do you have a source for this? A large claim to have with no source. -In the videogame industry about half of the gamers are women but their presence is still limited in the production of games.- Source? -Third paragraph in this section is a bit unclear.

Representation of women Underrepresentation: -Do you have the study you reference in the first paragraph as it does not appear to be a citation for it. -Consider going through the first two paragraphs and see if you could change the language to be more clear. The information is a little muddled in places. Sexualization: -Third paragraph doesn't seem to fit. Might work better in a section about positive representation of women in media. Could work nicely as a counterhegemonic section to this article.

Domestication: -“This portrayal contradict with reality of the time that by 1960's”..... (considered rewrite to condense things) -"The boss is usually a man." seems out of place in this section. Is there a way to integrate this better?

Age Gap: -(apparent) Are you considering using that or taking it out? -Remove the word "abound". You can just put "Examples include" To me the word abound seems biased. The word isn't necessary as you list quite a few examples which will give the same effect without displaying your bias.

-“ These advertisements are paradoxical in that they allow older celebrities to remain visible while encouraging an ageist and sexist culture in which women are valued for their appearance. Baby boomers are an increasingly important audience group for the cinema industry, resulting in more and new kinds of stories with older protagonists. Romantic comedies in which women protagonists take on the romantic heroine role provide one of the few spaces in popular culture showing appealing representations of older women, such as I Could Never Be Your Woman (2007), Last Chance Harvey (2008), and It’s Complicated (2009).” – Does this statement come from a study you found or is this your own conclusion/ idea on this topic?

Representations of men -Have you considered discussing the different representations of men in the media and how it relates to race? I know this is a whole other can of worms but I think it is important do distinguish what race these representations apply to as ideas/representations of a "man" vary across cultures and ethnicities.

Body Image -Watch out for bias! While normally a word like considering is fine in this article it sounds more like you are trying to convince your reader of something rather than reporting the facts.

Feminist Response -Fun fact I learned a couple weeks ago! The original bechdel test didn't include the women having names. That was added later by other critics. Also, it might be beneficial to find a more creditable source for this since using "bechdeltest.com" can come off as biased rather than from a scholar discussing the test. AlexLambright (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)