Wikipedia:Peer review/The Effect of World War I on Children in the United States/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Effect of World War I on Children in the United States[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… -I want further editing tips/scholarly advice -this is part of an educational assignment that requires a peer review!

Thanks, Donovank (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A brief one by NVO

What I suppose is now missing:

  • Basic demographics. Set the scope from the start: How many children there were? Who are children (max age cutoff)? How did their number change through the war? Was there a significant change in birth rate? Change in infant mortality? Children per mother? Share of single-parent families?
  • Health and healthcare. Perhaps this is more important than all zeppelins taken together. Did the war affect available healthcare standards at home? Did healthcare benefit from wartime experience? It should: war provided experience in mass treatment, which helped to contain outbreaks at home etc.
  • Morale, attitude, social skills: how the generation of war-time kids differed from their parents.
  • May I recommend looking into UNESCO "Children of X country profiles" for structuring the content.

I've noticed inconsistencies that just beg to ask questions...

  • "Between the years 1870 and 1910," - how is it relevant to World War I? I'm sure there is plenty of stats for the war years, why go back to Civil War period?
  • "Much of the sharp increase in this statistic can be attributed to the numerous positions that needed to be filled after the men started deploying for war" - did the Americans plan the Great War in 1910?
  • "Women were needed in the factories because the men could no longer run the machines" - same Qs as above. If it's about 1910, it's irrelevant for this article. If it's about war years, say so. Then there's another Q: how could one-million-strong AEF deplete the economy so badly? Perhaps it's not about men and women but about absolute growth of the industries? Your section on "technologies" is better be removed at all: it does not convey the scope of changes, and it does not actually address technology. The Maxim machine-gun has been around for thirty years before the war. But the war perfected manufacturing technology, improved productivity etc...
  • "Of the men who survived and returned home, post-traumatic stress disorder created a major impact on society ... post-traumatic stress was considered cowardice, and there were asylums throughout Europe housing men suffering from this condition. In some extreme cases, men were even shot for showing weakness." - Is this indeed about the survivors who returned home? Which country shot their retired soldiers for cowardice at home ? Which country set up asylums for post-traumatic syndrome ? Hell, there were millions left without eyes, arms and legs, who really cared about those who came back in one piece... May I recommend checking Dowswell's book against RS.
  • "because millions of young men were deployed and killed, it was difficult for young women of the same age to marry" - France, Germany, yes. For the U.S. this statement needs some statistical backup and anyway it's not millions (Americans) killed. Yes, a few good men perished, but there was immigration, and the majority of immigrants were male. A simple calc shows that within 3 to 5 years immigration restored prewar male/female ratio (although very unevenly distributed geographically).
  • "extreme nationalism and patriotism" - today these words sound differently than they did 100 years ago. They sound, at least, controversial. If, indeed, sources use these words, than they deserve an explanation - what did they mean by it? How did "extreme nationalism" of war-time U.S. differ from "ordinary nationalism" of pre-war years? How did it differ from extreme nationalism of, say, present-day Iran or other extreme cases?

etc. NVO (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very brief (and nearly uselss) one by Buggie111

  • I'd say add more images, maybe a diagram of <18 age enlistments across the U.S. or another pic of a kid, and provide alternate captions for them. I'd give a longer one if I was not in a rush. Buggie111 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]