Talk:Nuclear Deterrence Theory
Reviewed by Isha Lele
The current length of the article is 2,781 words including headers and in-text citations. Image caption is a solid length and gives strong detail about what the image is showing as well as the date it occurred. This length does not include references. Consider adding a few hundred more words either with including more images and image captions or another subsection with a header. According to the Wikipedia style guidelines, the introduction/lead section is too long. Consider cutting some of the quotes utilized as well as the parenthetical examples.
The article includes the 3 major components of a good article. Firstly, the opening paragraph summarizes what Nuclear Deterrence Theory is as well as some other associated key terms such as nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. However, the introduction goes into too much depth about historical events than what is necessary for a high-level overview. Bringing up the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is better suited for the body. Additionally, the derivation of the theory and its initial proposal can go in a section called “Term Derivation” or “Definition” right after the introduction. Additionally, listing examples in parenthetical phrases is too much depth for this section and is not really considered formal writing. Consider decreasing the number of parenthetical phrases and switching them to be better integrated into the writing.
The body of the article is broken up into subsections that are logical and relevant. However, some of the ordering could make the overall article clearer. Instead of having a subsection called “Nuclear Deterrence Theory”, you should consider naming the section “Definition” or “Term Derivation” and it should follow the introduction. Jumping into “History” without giving context of what the term actually means is making the article hard to follow. Additionally, some paragraphs are a little lengthy compared to others: ex. United States first paragraph, Ethical debate of the atomic bombings second paragraph. Also, consider shortening the titles of subheaders such as “Ethical debate of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Consider including ethical debates that do not center around specific events. For example, the ethical debate of funding programs.
Finally, the writer does a good job of citing and provides a comprehensive list at the end of the article. However, some citations are only provided at the end of the paragraph. Consider revising the article and making sure each statement has a corresponding citation. Additionally, consider including some readings from class – specifically, within the ethics commentary.
A few minor notes include some incorrect spacing scattered throughout the page as well as some grammatical errors such as run-on sentences (especially in the United States History section) and incorrect usages of a comma. Wording is also hard to follow in some places – especially in the ethical debate sections. Also, be sure to fact check some statements used. For example, who defines the Soviet Union as one of the only two superpowers at the time? I am unfamiliar with this assumption.
The issue of Nuclear Deterrence Theory is clear. However, I suggest to try to be more clear in language when defining what the Theory actually is and make sure that is included briefly in the Introduction and in more depth in the following “Term Derivation” section. While I understood what the ethical issues are, it would be clearer if you used language such as, “this side argued this” and “the other side argued that”. Additionally, consider including more ethical debates and shortening some of the “History” section to ensure the article is topical and relevant to class.
Objective Reporting (Neutral point of view)
The author does a good job being objective when reporting ethical issues. They speak of the controversy at a high level and are sure to include multiple perspectives and never specifying what their own beliefs are. The author can try to be more intentional on how many words are dedicated to explaining one side versus another though. Right now, one point of view in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki section is significantly longer than the other. Additionally, the author can consider including more points of view instead of the two most obvious ones in each section. I liked how the author introduced the debate at a high level in the first paragraph of each section as it gave a strong introduction and context to the reader.
This section was particularly confusing to follow. Given the complexities these debates pose, the author should be very intentional about wording and order in which ideas are introduced.