User talk:Nferraz1994

You have an overdue training assignment.
Please complete the assigned training modules. --GarthBLMCourse (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Nferraz1994, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed some content
Hi - I removed some of the material you added to the article Representation of African Americans in media. The reasons for this are as follows: (I'm including the work that added to the article since this looks to have been group work - I'll point her in this direction for the feedback.)


 * Horror
 * The section lacked coverage that backed up the points in the article. Much of it looked to be your own original research, which would be claims and conclusions you drew based on sourcing that doesn't explicitly make this point or personal knowledge.


 * The Magical Negro trope and blaxpoitation subgenre are not limited to the horror genre. The Magical Negro trope tends to appear in just about every genre, as well as in fiction as a whole (books, comics, etc). Blaxpoitation incorporates several different themes that includes horror but also span action, comedy, and nostalgia. Basically, these are things that could be under a general film header but not horror in specific because they're not limited to horror. They would still need reliable sources, however - academic sourcing is typically the best possible sourcing for topics like this.

This was removed by. Sections like this are often very subjective, as what could be seen as positive representation by one may not be by another. Another could also disagree with the listed shows and films, instead arguing that other films or movies should be listed before these. More importantly, however, is that sections like this need sourcing that explicitly state that these are good examples of contemporary positive representation, as otherwise this runs the risk of being seen as a personal list and original research.
 * Examples of Contemporary Positive Representation for the Black Community in the Media


 * Stereotypes


 * One of the things I removed was a list of attributes - with content like this it should be written in paragraph format. There's also concern that this may be redundant to the main article, Stereotypes of African Americans, and/or that this amount of depth should be covered in the main article.


 * The blackface and minstrel section came across as too much of a personal essay, as it looked to contain original research and phrasing such as "we" that is typically seen in essays and papers. Another concern was that the section came across as a general reaction to and history of blackface and minstrel shows. It didn't really specifically show how it impacted representation per se - there was some mention of this but the general gist was that this was a history and reaction section. Another concern with this section was that the claims weren't explicitly stated in the source material. For example, one of the sources was a book review - while these can contain information that could be helpful (I've used them before in this way myself) - you need to make sure that the claim is very specifically stated in the source material. We can't even call Garfield a cat unless we have a source that explicitly states "Garfield is a cat".
 * With the digital blackface section, this looks like it's a little out of scope for the article as the focus is more on cultural appropriation and blackface than representation. I'd look into adding it to Blackface rather than this article. However with that said, the sourcing needs to be improved - you need independent, reliable sources that discuss this in-depth. One of the sourcing is a self-published iPhone help website, which wouldn't be seen as a good reliable source on Wikipedia for this factoid - something like this is better, although academic and scholarly sources are always best. Also keep in mind that the term may not be solely used to refer to gifs and memes as it was used here to refer to motion capture technology with film at one point.

I hope that this helps explain the changes - let me know on my talk page if either of you have any questions! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)