Talk:Effect of World War I on children in the United States

comments

this is the google books version of the pamphlet. you could include more on this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions for improvements

Interesting topic. I have a couple of suggestions for improving the article, although they are mainly just cosmetic:

• In the Basic Background section "February of 1917" should be "February 1917" per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers);
• In the Home Life section there is a sentence fragment (".[11], so many of them were children themselves");
• per the MOS only the first word in a heading should be capitalised, e.g. Impact on Daily Life should be "Impact on daily life";
• the citations that are to the same source can be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS, (some of those that are the same are Greenwald 4, Dowswell 132, Spring 20 and Spring 25);
• the References section should be sorted so that they are listed in alphabetical order by author's surname.

Anyway, good work so far and good luck. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Done Donovank (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gook work! Maybe mention more on the boy scouts or mention another youth organization. user: clarker1 —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC).

Good job. The only thing is that there is a link made under the education category that does not exist. Rudy4rachel (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi girls! The article sounded great. The only thing I can think of to mention is to add more youth organizations that were formed or go a little more in depth on the boy scouts. If the only organization you mention is the boy scouts, I don't think you need a separate heading for that. Otherwise, good work ! Saralo16 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a good article. I think there are a few sections that coule be expanded a little more. I also believe that if you added a few more pictures to the article it would really add to its appeal. It would make it easier to look at and less wordy. Overall it is a good article, and the a good source of information. hersh016 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.146 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Article looks good! There seems to be more information on the war itself than the children, such as discussing the machine gun. I feel like the sections talking about the actual effect on children need to be added to. Other than that the article is very informative! Good job. Nock526 (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

National Education Association

The article states that the NEA was created by the federal government as part of the war effort. NEA was created in the 1850s. Is there a program that NEA and the federal government collaborated on? Some clarification is needed, or this needs to be removed. Dwight911pdx (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Reads like an essay & also repetitive

I feel like this article reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. There's quite a bit of interpretation without citations, as though the author was supposed to support a specific conclusion.

It also feels like an essay where that writer needed to add a few hundred words in order to satisfy the instructions for an assignment. Several points, particularly about women's roles outside the home are repeated several times.

There are also a few things that seem to have been deleted. For example, the Boy Scouts raised "$" in their second Liberty Bond campaign - there's no number.

My general sense is that a lot of this material might instead belong in the articles on:

1) the home front in the United States, or 2) the impact of the war on women in the United States

I unfortunately cannot devote the time necessary to rewrite this article, but I think a major cleanup is necessary. Lloannna (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)