I chose to observe and “restructure” the Esquire article mentioned in the textbook.
What I would do is break the text into sections based on topics (which would be hyperlinked). Start with a heading of “History” and talk briefly about the individual’s history. Then go into “Events” talking about his events with this situation (the mission). Finally, go into “Aftermath” and talk about how little help the United States Government gave to their soldiers.
More specifically, the subheadings for the events were actually not extremely terrible. Each event is specifically categorized with corresponding text. It should be more condensed and the subheadings should have more depth to their names. Giving more detail as to how all of that happened is fine, but ensuring that it is separated and broken up into more well documented and conducive paragraphs is needed.
For the History and Aftermath section, it has to be broken up into multiple sections. The reader gets lost in what is provided and honestly stops reading after so long. Breaking it up will provide the reader to read in “sections”, which will allow the reader easier access to reading the story. Also, adding visual aids and making the paragraphs not all look the same is key. Visual aids (ex: pictures, videos, etc.) allows the reader to associate something with what is being said, which will make them read on and try to process even more.
The main points that really needed to be fixed are just that it is TOO MUCH for the average reader to handle. It is poorly designed, the stories and quotes are too broken up and not really concise, and there aren’t enough breaks or visual aids to keep the reader going. By correcting all of those problems, the article could actually be good, if not for all of those things.