User:Doas52/New Deal/Huckstuhr Peer Review

General info
Doas52
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Doas52/New Deal - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):New Deal - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: I like what you added to the lead as it is important to show discontent against it. But it does need a source added to it. Where did the information come from? The lead of the article is a big section. What part of the lead does it fit into? How will it flow with the rest of the information? If there is not already a section on it in the existing article it needs to be talked about in a sub section. The existing lead is already strong, so I don't think anything needs to be added in the description of the new deal. But if there are main topics being added to the article it is important to bring them up in the lead.

Content: The existing article already has tons of content. The information that is in your information is good. Talking about the du Point brothers and the American Liberty league is important in understanding the nations thoughts on it. It looks like there is only one point that you have written on so far. I think it would be valuable to add content on how the new deal effected underrepresented groups. It is tough to add historical context to the article because there is already so much. I would suggest pulling something out of A Consumers' Republic to add both historical context and connect with course material. Rather than making a new subheading finding something in the book that fits into one of the categories already created is probably the best way to go about this.

Tone and Balance: Overall the tone of your sandbox reads like a book report rather than an informative tone. For example, instead of saying "In this academic article written by Kim Phillips-Fein, we are introduced to the du Pont family, specifically three brothers who were considered reputable leaders of the American business community in 1934." I would take out the intro about the article. Instead find specific facts and material to paraphrase and put a citation at the end of the sentence. Something like In 1934, three brothers of the du Pont family were recognized as leaders of the American Business Community. This makes the tone sound more informative based rather than like a paper or essay. While reading your sandbox it feels like I am reading an article on the book rather than the new deal. The best way to avoid this is to pull out information from the book and site it rather than explaining what the book is about and summarizing it. The information that your brought up is strong. Another example is this sentence "It was generally believed by many that the policies of the New Deal were infringing on American constitutional rights." I like the use of generally to not force a position but the words "by many could be removed to sound less personal. Saying "It was generally believed that the policies of the new deal were infringing on Amercian constitutional rights". I feel that even this may be leaning to a side a little too much. It would be best to provide the information a let the reader come to this conclusion themselves.

Sources: I only see one source in your sandbox as of now. There should be at least four more sources, along with one that connects with the class. It is also important to reference your sources in the body of the paragraph that correlates to the footnotes. Having more sources will help the tone of the body become more informative by providing information from many different websites, books or articles. With more sources what is said in the body can be more backed up, rather than adding in personal opinion to fill out information.

Organization: I think that all the first half of the information in your sandbox can stay together when moving it to the Wikipedia article. It is important to only move over information that is backed by sources and remove filler. I would suggest in cutting down the paragraph to have facts directly backed by sources that can connect to public opinion. Then move it all in one subtopic to the main page. It sounds like there is a split in information in the paragraph about half-way down begging with, "This time period also saw the working class gain a stronger voice as labor strikes and union organization threatened large corporations." This second half could fit under the same category but should be its own paragraph so that there are two separate examples of criticism, In the current wiki page I see a category titled criticism and feel these two topics would help build this topic on the new deal.

Images and media; There is tons of graphs and pictures in the current article, and you don't have any in the sandbox. I feel that the current article does not need any more photos or graphs. It will make it look too busy. If you did want to add a photo there is none in the criticism section of the article but I don't feel it is needed. "This time period also saw the working class gain a stronger voice as labor strikes and union organization threatened large corporations" A picture for this would be a good idea if you wanted.

Overall Impression: I like the additions of more criticism to the new deal article. Overall, I feel the tone of the article needs to be more informative. Having more sources is what will help this the most. A good place to start is with our class book and what Cohen says about the new deal. In your tone try and sound as best you can to sound like an encyclopedia. What has helped me with this is reading other Wikipedia articles that have a high rating and using that style of writing. Because the page is so extensive, I like the idea of going in depth on an unrepresented topic of the new deal. Good start to the wiki page. Just gather more sources that fit the topic of the American Liberty League. When looking for sources it is important to find some that contradict the liberty league to keep an unbiased tone.