Care to read my article?

Post Reply New Topic

http://dmdc.x10.mx/

No insults directed at the author, or you'll be in trouble.

However, feel free to debate any points, check my grammar, etc. etc.

The author is a poopyhead.

In all seriousness, once I got past the boring bit, your article reminded me of Catch-22. Organizational Organization made me laugh, as did Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel Readiness. Much of the rest of the article looked very boring though, so I skipped large chunks. Perhaps you could do a second article, where instead of proving your point (which seemed to be the goal of this article) you present your point in an amusing manner?

Well, it was originally two separate articles.

One: a rebuttal to the agency's rebuttal of my Armed Forces & Society article on the agency's putrid statistical methods. But, the editor wasn't interested.

The other: an article, which I could never get published anywhere, on the problem of toxic supervision at the Department of Defense.

So, I thought: why not do what the cool people do these days, and just publish it myself?

I think the article would need to be more concise.

The opening statement gives the impression that the article is purely about crappy application of statistics, but more than half of the article is about the management practices at the DMDC.

A little less "f**k" and a little more "BS" would also be in order... this is the government, after all... The word "f**k" has too many positive connotations to be used in this context.

Oh, and this :

I suppose that I could rework the opening statement into something of a concise article that comes close to a standalone article on its own. Then, anyone who wants more details can wade through the rest of it.

I'll have to work the word "poopyhead" into it somehow.

Okay, take another look, please.

http://dmdc.x10.mx/

I managed to get the word "poopyhead" in there.

The first thing you should put in that article is a good definition of what this DMDC is without beating around the bush. What I really hate is when articles, especially news articles, are very wordy without really telling you what the f they are talking about- ie the meat of what it's about - that drives me crazy! First thing you need to include is a good definition. You can paraphrase if need be or copy it from elsewhere but please. Make sure it is good and to the point without being five miles long. Concise is a good adjective.

You sorta hint to what it is but you don't really offer a good definition like, in the first three lines of your article. Don't make me search for it. man.

Thank you!

Who is this article's intended audience?
The objective is too clouded with personal feelings and profanity to be taken seriously.
For starters try less emotion but more objectivity and clearly stated facts. Few people want to read things written by someone coming off as a radical unless it's a study of criminology or psychiatry.
On top of everything it's too long.
If you want people to read it you have to at least capture their attention with it and hold it otherwise it's all for nothing.
I couldn't torture myself by reading all of it.

And this is only coming from a churlish, unlettered ruffian.

Needs more cowbell.

Yes, it's a a good idea to draw people in by building up just a bit. Careful not to be really long winded in the very beginning. Build it up by sorta hinting what it's about. This can be a lead into that definition I suggested. Try to get as much conciseness jammed into that intro paragraph as possible, then go into the body of your article, which would include a lot of your quoted sources. Then conclude. The beginning is the most important part because if you ramble and become long winded then, you will lose readers. Be conscious of how you can get people really interested in it.

How about now? I mentioned Linda Tripp in the first sentence.

Purpose is important.

Profanity in support of entertainment, or political speech is a very different thing than profanity in journalism or scholarly speech.

Know your audience, and know your medium.

Is that the only article on that site?

"The Defense Management Data Center (DMDC) is a little-known government agency whose principal claim to fame is having once included Linda Tripp on its payroll. The DMDC bills itself as "the authoritative source of information on over 42 million people connected to the United States Department of Defense" (DoD).[1]"

This is good lead in. My only concern is you haven't satiated the reader's appetite for the full definition of DMDC in your own words because I know by reading your posts on WP, you are good at expressing yourself naturally through writing which is why I think your own definition written in your own way would be the most interesting definition to include.

Like, for instance, tell what it is, what it does, who it effects, not just a vague reference to surveys but something like, The DMDC is a government controlled organization that is really a section of the Defense Department.

Not that I know what it is, I don't, I am just improvising for the sake of an example. I am an uneducated reader and your job is to educate me. Start from there, that your audience knows nothing because most the people reading this on WP probably do not know much about this particular organization. A few might. but not everyone, so, you want to draw all of us in so we can comment on it and join you for a discussion. This way you can share with everyone.