“Walter’s Thing: The NAACP’s Hollywood Bureau of 1946–A Cautionary Tale,”

Select one article from the list below and read carefully and completely.
Write a one-page, single-spaced review of the article.
The review should have four elements:
What is the author’s primary argument/thesis?
What evidence of support does the author give to defend and/or prove the argument/thesis?
In your view, what are the strengths of the article?
In your view, what are the weaknesses of the article?
The review should meet the following format guidelines:
It should be typed (single-space)
Students should save the final document as a .rtf document (rich text format).
The margins should be set at one inch (top, bottom, left, right).
The font style should be Times New Roman.
The font size should be 12 point.
Type your name in the upper left hand corner of the paper.
Grades for this assignment will be based on the following:
The extent to which you successfully identify the author’s primary argument (20 points possible).
The extent to which you identify and summarize the author’s supporting evidence (40 points possible).
The quality of your evaluation of the strengths of the article (40 points possible).
The quality of your evaluation of the weaknesses of the article (40 points possible).
Failure to follow the format guidelines will result in substantial loss of points.
Poor spelling and grammar/punctuation will also result in a loss of points.

OUR WRITER SAMPLE; SEE BELOW;

“Walter’s Thing: The NAACP’s Hollywood Bureau of 1946–A Cautionary Tale”
The author’s main argument in this article is that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is a better agency than the previous Hollywood agency whereby every institutional foundation made efforts to deny African American life and culture as part of the screens. The new agency, therefore, is fair in that the African American’s are not denied the opportunity of playing their roles in movie making. For instance, when it comes to awards the best producers and performers are chosen from any race and not just from one race (‘Walter’s thing’, 2005). Hence, all participants in the movie making processes are possible candidates for receiving awards. Previously, there were production codes that worked to censor the moral and political content of movies being produced. It also censored the network of fan magazines and the daily press reviews so that no African American issue was touched on (‘Walter’s thing’, 2005). The NAACP, on the other hand, is focused on promoting the fan driven ratings, earning performance aspects of the movie.
This article has both strengths and weaknesses. As for the strengths, the author has identified a thesis and has stuck with it throughout the article. The thesis is being supported by facts such as quotations from previous leaders of the association, the difference between how the previous movie making was being handled, and how these were not the best ways to promote the African American life and culture.
The weakness of this article is that the author has borrowed content from other sources but has not acknowledged the sources. Therefore, there is no proof that what he is talking about is indeed true or is simply made up.