# Paper 1 - 2

{% file src="<https://355118368-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FHlhtEhu7GoLlUCT5uFLL%2Fuploads%2FGpkdCGT8LNiTZqsb5x9d%2FPaper_1_-_2.pdf?alt=media&token=1a528e09-9de2-430e-8592-0ba3eff082ed>" %}

Link: <https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/mcarthyism-red-scare>

Text type: history article

For who: Americans interested in history

Subject: Red Scare information

Purpose: inform the audience about the recent research on the Red Scare, while also being entertaining

Visuals:

* Pictures are labelled to give more context and wrap text information
* Old illustrations are more about amusement than evidence for the article, making an article more visually appealing
* The first letters of sections draw readers' attention and compensate for the lack of visual hierarchy. They stand out and have a different colour.
* The main content is bigger than the side content.
* The logo is fixed at the top of the webpage, which adds credibility to the information.

Structure:

* There is no bibliography or citation
* The layout is broken.  It’s perfectly aligned throughout the article, making it harder to follow the main information, but simultaneously, the images attract users to read additional side information.\
  The first paragraph has evocative language, which then shifts towards a more formal style

Language:

* Language has slang and operates with a lot of names. Therefore, it is easy to understand for historians.
* Quotes of historical figures add evidence and value to the article, making it look more credible and reliable.
* Language is quite dramatic and literal. “paranoia”, “lurking”, “No one dared”. Overdramatises the actual events
* Convincing people about how bad the communism
* Using contractions to make it less formal
* Why didn’t Eisenhower do more to confront McCarthy? === rhetorical question makes it more engaging

What was bad about this paper:

* Don't remember, honestly
