Talk:National Committee for an Effective Congress

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition An interest group in which people from the United States organize different resources and raise money to elect promising candidates to the United States House of Representatives and Congress. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Politics and Eduzendium [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

First (instructor) evaluation comments

Hi Katie,

Here are some suggestions for further improvements to your encyclopedia entry draft:

  • You might flesh out the intro a bit more; in particular, you might say a little about the type of people the NCEC hopes to elect to Congress, perhaps with some prominent examples of their candidates (e.g. Diane Feinstein).
  • You might consolidate all the information about Eleanor Roosevelt and her friends into the "Founding" subsection and then add additional subsections to the "History" section about the organization's development after 1948.
  • The explanation of the "Senate top 10" list could be a bit clearer. Also, you might want to format the list as a table (see here for instructions).
  • You might elaborate more on the leadership positions beyond the committee chairman. It's also not clear from your draft whether Scheuer is still the chairman.
  • The "Achievements" section is kind of vague; you might do some more research to help develop it further and provide more specific information about the NCEC's successes. Here again, it might help to discuss some of the more prominent members of Congress that were elected with the NCEC's help and/or elections in which NCEC support was especially pivotal.
  • Similarly, the section on "Public Perceptions and Controversies" would benefit from more development. It would probably be a good idea to look for sources other than the NCEC itself here.

Shamira Gelbman 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Second (peer) evaluation comments