User:Lhorne2024/Operation Bootstrap/Shivamsaran Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@Lhrone2024


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lhorne2024/Operation Bootstrap
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Operation Bootstrap

Evaluate the drafted changes
'''The lead section begins with a strong start. It has a brief, yet detailed, description of what Operation Bootstrap is and touches base on the effects it had on Puerto Rico, even to today. My only suggestion would be to include some of the "series of projects" in the lead to help give context to the type of economic projects that were going on. What was the role of the U.S. Federal Government and the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company, with regards to this operation?'''

'''The history section is solid. It starts as far back as 1947, giving context to even before Operation Bootstrap started, and goes until 2005, describing how much of a long-lasting influence it had. I think information about why their sugarcane plantations became "one of the poorest" can be better explained, given that it sparked such a major legislative change. This section also does a good job of describing the economic shift from agriculture to manufacturing and tourism that followed.'''

'''The effects section includes some new, important information that is not found in the original article. The author does a great job of talking about the increased standard of living that followed Operation Bootstrap, not only mentioning higher wages but external benefits such as electric grids and new infrastructure. That being said, this information does seem to contradict the content which follows on Mass Migration. There, the author claims that Puerto Ricans were forced to leave in search of better financial opportunities and higher wages. However, this doesn't match up with the earlier point about increased standard of living. If only a select group of Puerto Ricans benefited from Operation Bootstrap (Manufacturing workers, perhaps), then that should be explicitly mentioned.'''

'''The article has quite a few sources, which is good as it adds to the credibility of the article. It also seems like most of the sources are very timely and accurate with the content of the article. The tone, for the most part, is fairly neutral and unbiased. However, one line in particular which stood out was "The US government in Puerto Rico enticed US companies by providing (exploited)labor at costs below those on the mainland — slaves, in short" I think you should remove the word exploited, because although many people view it like that, including me, it adds a bit of personal bias into the writing. I think the "slave, in short" part was a great addition though.'''

'''Overall, great article! It is very organized and shows clear explanations for the reasoning behind Operation Bootstrap. It also does a great job explaining the aftereffects of the programs, both immediately and long-term. Great job!'''