ARTICLE REVIEWS: Each student will be required to draft ONE 3-4 page formal review of a scholarly journal article selected by the professor and accessible as a hyperlink on the list of approved articles for review (see below for list).
You should select the article you wish to review no later than 19 March 2016 and inform me of your choice by email. Students should follow the “Guide to Writing Article Reviews” included on the course Blackboard page (see above hyperlinked document).
I expect that your writing skills are fully commensurate with college-level learning. I will edit your work closely, so be prepared to see plenty of recommended changes.
Typical writing mistakes include: split infinitives, excess verbiage, noun/verb disagreement, awkward and confusing statements, punctuation errors, faulty syntax, flawed logic, a fundamental lack of clarity, failure to fully identify and discuss the author’s thesis, use of first person and contractions, biased writing, spelling errors, and capitalization mistakes. Avoid all of these. Refrain from using the word “very”–it has no meaning. Likewise, avoid beginning sentences with the word “This” in referencing the previous sentence’s subject.
Basically stated, I am looking for clear, concise, and crisp writing. There is no need to “colorize” history–it is colorful enough.
A NOTE ABOUT PLAGIARISM: PLAGIARISM IS THE FRAUDULENT PROCESS OF OFFERING AS ONE’S OWN WORK THE WRITINGS AND/OR IDEAS OF OTHERS. THIS INCLUDES MATERIALS THAT YOU GATHER FROM SOURCES ON THE INTERNET. SUCH PROCESSES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. REFERENCE ALL QUOTATIONS AND THOUGHTS THAT ARE NOT YOUR OWN. Use Turabian’s Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations for referencing and typing guidelines.
HONESTY STATEMENT: In accordance with the Standards of Conduct in the TROY Bulletin, a student or organization may be disciplined, up to and including suspension and expulsion, if deemed in violation of the STANDARDS OF CONDUCT for the commission of or the attempt to commit this offense: Dishonesty, such as cheating, plagiarism or knowingly furnishing false information to the university, faculty, or other officers or employees of the university. Please note that your essay will be graded as much for clarity and grammar as it will be for content. Excellent composition and organizational skills are expected of all college students.
It is no doubt that the Operation Overload is one of the military events in the American history to receive many reviews; it has criticisms and praises in equal measure. Opinions are split on whether it was necessary or not. It is considered as a decisive victory that was critical in the eventual outcome of the Second World War. Its various aspects have attracted reviews from policy analysts, military strategists, and researchers. They have analyzed and discussed the operation’s composition, missions, size and nature in relation to the past and present America military policies. This paper will review a scholarly journal article that relates to Operation Overload. Particularly, it will review the article by Adrian R. Lewis, titled “The Failure of Allied Planning and Doctrine for Operation Overload: The Case of Minefield and Obstacle Clearance” published in The Journal of Military History. The author begins the article by providing a brief quote by military historian Russell F. Weigley who attributed America’s near defeat to American planners failing to deploy effective war doctrine. Lewis seeks to advance a varying explanation. He seeks to differ with Weigley’s thesis on the matter, and instead advancing the narrative that the Allied planners were rejecting established doctrinal practices in favor of new technology and new doctrine. Lewis’ thesis is succinctly and clearly stated and a reader cannot struggle to learn what he is discussing in his article. The article has succeeded in presenting sufficient facts to support the thesis. For example, he explains how the obstacle and minefield clearing plan is a demonstration of the willingness of the Allies to experiment new strategies while discarding established doctrine. The article is well organized; the author has espoused his narrative in an orderly manner. He has combined both the analytical and thematic styles to bring out his message and to state facts to support his thesis. He goes to a commendable extent to show how the Normandy invasion was unique and why the operation needed new technology, new doctrine, and new solutions…