Questions:
- Does the research make sense and validate my claims regarding campaign finance laws?
- Does the brief satisfy the claims of my thesis?
- I am a bit wary about the language… do you think my brief adequately uses gender inclusive language (as to not exclude non-binary or gender non-conforming individuals)?
- What other suggestions do you have to ensure clarity?
1). Answer any questions the writer may have posed about the draft
– The research definitely supports your argument
– Your brief definitely supports your thesis, but I think that there are some parts of your brief that may be unnecessary when only focusing on reform within Pennsylvania
– Yes
2). Comment on scope of the thesis and whether or not it was convincingly argued. What improvements are needed to make it more convincing?
I think all elements of the thesis are convincingly argued, but there is also a lot of information that spans far beyond the state of Pennsylvania that may not be necessary for this issue brief. Many parts of the brief draw back to the thesis but there are times where there are copious amounts of info that I don’t see directly connecting to your overall point.
3). Comment on the evidence for the policy or its implementation. Does the draft need stronger sources to support the arguments? What kinds?
Your evidence is extremely well presented, and you have clearly put a lot of effort into already citing your sources. I think evidence is undoubtedly the strongest part of this issue brief.
4). Did the piece handle questions of feasibility or objections to the policy?
I think your topic does not really need to address the concept of feasibility, but mentioning it may help elevate your brief. I think your mentioning of failures, stigmas, and lack of action address objections pretty well, but I would be interested to know why people would object some of your policy recommendations.
5). Comment on any improvements to arrangement that could be considered.
N/A
6). Comment on the structure of the issue brief, including subtitles.
The Structure of your brief is good, but like I said you may be able to cut down on some of your commentary about national representation of women. This information is important, but maybe just not to the extent that you wrote. Your subtitles look strong.
7). Make one recommendation for something that could be moved, changed, added, or deleted.
Earlier comments about maybe cutting out some information that isn’t essential to your argument
Does the research make sense and validate my claims regarding campaign finance laws?
Yes, the only suggestion I would have is to maybe explain what “small donor financing” is outright just in case your reader is unsure. I know what you mean, but maybe just have a little bit more explanation.
Does the brief satisfy the claims of my thesis?
Yes definitely, I believe you cover exactly what you need to and go into perfect depth. I honestly think you’re pretty much golden here.
I am a bit wary about the language… do you think my brief adequately uses gender inclusive language (as to not exclude non-binary or gender non-conforming individuals)?
I did not notice any glaring issues with gender inclusive language, I think you’re good!
What other suggestions do you have to ensure clarity?
When you discuss finance reform in your gatekeeper section, you discuss women having to go at odds with large companies and big money, but you never outright state that these “big money” players prefer to sponsor… and are often made up of men. I think some sort of outward statement like that would make the section clearer.
2). Thesis Scope/Convincing:
Your thesis is great. It is clear and you point out your solution – small-donor
campaigning and voluntary party mandates – right away, so the reader knows exactly what the info brief will lead to.
3). Evidence for the policy/Stronger sources:
Your paper is extremely well researched, and you even provide lots of insights I’m sure some haven’t heard before (in your “Peace and Stability” section, I never knew that women were more willing to cross party lines, I also love that infograph). The whole paper was engaging and your policy proposal section is amazing.
4). Feasibility/Objections:
I believe your arguments for small-donor campaigning and voluntary party mandates are great, and have lots of evidence backing them. You don’t outwardly discuss any possible cons or objections to either however (which honestly I’m not sure if you are supposed to so maybe ignore me).
5). Improvements to Arrangement/Structure/Subtitles:
I think you are fine, looks great.
6). Recommendations:
Just clarifying exactly what you mean when discussing big issues or laws to make the paper digestible to any audience. Other than that, looks great.
1). Answer any questions the writer may have posed about the draft
The research makes sense and your brief definitely validates your research. I think you did a good job including all terms for gender inclusivity.
2). Comment on scope of the thesis and whether or not it was convincingly argued. What improvements are needed to make it more convincing?
I think you argued very convincingly and I can’t honestly think of much to change, your resources are all very good.
3). Comment on the evidence for the policy or its implementation. Does the draft need stronger sources to support the arguments? What kinds?
Like I previously stated, you’ve really done your research. I think this is a very strong and engaging argument.
4). Did the piece handle questions of feasibility or objections to the policy?
You handled feasibility well, maybe just argue a little more on the against or opposing point of view.
5). Comment on any improvements to arrangement that could be considered.
I actually enjoy your arrangement.
6). Comment on the structure of the issue brief, including subtitles.
I think you did a good job, you followed the template well.
7). Make one recommendation for something that could be moved, changed, added, or deleted.
I would just make sure you’re explicitly explaining each law you discuss, but overall I think you did am excellent job.