Talk:Gender in advertising/Archives/2018
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cleanup
I found that the source for the "History" section is from "The Atlantic". The article is not written by a professional in the field and therefore not a good source. I think we should scrap that whole section and make an actual history of gender advertisement. Currently I have left that part in a block quote. --The Unfit Donkey (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The references in the "Role Reversal" section are moved, I did find the place they were moved to, but the page said nothing that related to what the section said and it included erotic imagery. -- The Unfit Donkey (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest creating a redirect for the words "Gender Marketing" --The Unfit Donkey (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm new to this, but it's not clear to me that the article title is actually used that much in reliable sources, outside of by or about Goffman. A Google books search is not impressive. Facts 101 are mirrors, some other apparently independent sources use identical language to the first sentence. The "number of hits" is notoriously misleading; a standard technique is to "forward" a few pages, and already by page four, there are no more bolded snippets holding the title. Of those results on the first three pages, the majority refer to Goffman's book. If you remove Goffman and mirrors from the equation, there appear to be less than ten in English (click page forward, don't rely on hit counter). Now, given that Goffman had a book about this, that may be sufficient to establish notability, but then I wonder if the article should be just about his book, and reactions to it. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems that the first paragraph (after the list) in the section Femininity in Advertising is promoting "The Girl Effect" campaign. The Unfit Donkey (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
From reading the article I think we should remove the editorial issue from the multiple issues for this page. The Unfit Donkey (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Problems I found with the citations on this pageThe Unfit Donkey (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- [5] has no Author
- [14] is broken
- The link for [18] doesn't lead where it says
- I Couldn't find the CD [23] was talking about
- [35] only has author names