Should say first of all I don't mean to be ambiguous, this is Gaige commenting, I just don't know how to change my name.
Anyway, generally I don't think the paper was too bad. On my initial read through I never got tripped up, which is always a good sign, and although your organization is simple, that just makes it easy to follow. I found, in particular, that the quotes you used were well chosen, and you did a good job of analyzing them an adequate amount. That being said, there are some points of improvement. The main ones I'll highlight are your use of sources, your intro/conclusion, and some general explanation to synthesis points, so you can get a feel for how it reads.
As far as your sources, I'm really kind of torn. Your quotes, particularly in the intro and conclusion, were great choices, though I'll readdress those later. The other quote you used in the academic writing section demonstrated your point well, and you did a good job of breaking it down and explaining why it's a good example. The downfall is, however, that's it. You only cite one reference, as well as your interview, which more or less defeats the purpose of having six references. I'd really like to see you incorporate some summary and paraphrasing, and to approach it in the analytical way that you did with your direct quotation. It'll add some further understanding for your claims, as well as fill some space that you're probably gonna need after editing. Not to mention I think it'd really some of your repetitiveness. There were some clear points you seemed to be reaching for length, when a good reference would have filled the space well.
To go back to the intro and conclusion, I really enjoyed your use of quotations from your interview. It really captured what you were going for, as well as provided some really nice framing that, from a writers point of view, is just some bonus style points. That being said, the actual content doesn't quite match with the quality of your quote selection. The intro, first of all, is what I would deem adequate, but your hypothesis/thesis is rather generic. It's a line that just about anyone could've used in their papers. So I'd say just try to individualize it a little bit, perhaps after editing your body. The conclusion is similar, where it's adequate, but I was very much expecting to many readdress and specify your hypothesis you made at the beginning in the intro, but there didn't seem to be any trace of it. It'd be really solid if you could bring that back around, at least in some semblance.
My last big point would just be the clarity of some points in the paper. It feels, from my point of view, that you transition from some claims to another with little to no explanation at some point. It's hard to go through and quote what I mean, but I think if you read through some of my marks and such you'll understand what I mean. And as I said earlier, having a few more references will really help with that.
However, that being said, I'd look back over the last two paragraphs of the Non-academic section. Their both simple and short, but it follows a very clear and well organized structure, where it describes what you're talking about, why it's important, and then you synthesize it to the purpose. That's the general format that most of your paragraphs should have, I think, though adding some complexity to those two paragraphs wouldn't hurt.
To reiterate, the general feel for the paper was very good. One thing I didn't talk about was the organization, and that's because quite frankly I thought the simplicity was strong, and made it flow quite well overall. There's not much I'd change about that.
Overall the paper was well written. Word choice was very good and it was fairly easy to understand and follow.
The first problem that I had with the paper was on page three, the second paragraph. At the end of this paragraph you call APA structure simple. While it is a very structured style of writing, I would not call it simple. I feel that there is a better word that you could use there than simple. I also would suggest that you talk more about why this structure is beneficial in the academic area of the field of psychology.
On page four in the second paragraph I was confused. I do not understand why having complicated jargon and technical terms would be unhelpful to someone who works in psychology. The entire section about language in academic writing could use more thorough explanation as it seems to contradict itself. You say that the language isn't complicated but then say it's hard to understand because of the way in which the language is used but then use quoted words (poachers and preclude) which suggests that the language is difficult. I think it'd help if instead of using the word simple language you said that they do not use specific language. It also doesn't make sense that you say that academic writing is tailored for others in the field but that they don't use language specific for people in the field.
I'd like you to compare and contrast APA and MLA more in the non-academic section. I think that if you were to do this it'd help to better make your argument. I do not understand though on page 5 when you say that having direct quotes in non-academic writings helps because it's familiar to the audience. This could use a little more explaining.
Should say first of all I don't mean to be ambiguous, this is Gaige commenting, I just don't know how to change my name.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, generally I don't think the paper was too bad. On my initial read through I never got tripped up, which is always a good sign, and although your organization is simple, that just makes it easy to follow. I found, in particular, that the quotes you used were well chosen, and you did a good job of analyzing them an adequate amount. That being said, there are some points of improvement. The main ones I'll highlight are your use of sources, your intro/conclusion, and some general explanation to synthesis points, so you can get a feel for how it reads.
As far as your sources, I'm really kind of torn. Your quotes, particularly in the intro and conclusion, were great choices, though I'll readdress those later. The other quote you used in the academic writing section demonstrated your point well, and you did a good job of breaking it down and explaining why it's a good example. The downfall is, however, that's it. You only cite one reference, as well as your interview, which more or less defeats the purpose of having six references. I'd really like to see you incorporate some summary and paraphrasing, and to approach it in the analytical way that you did with your direct quotation. It'll add some further understanding for your claims, as well as fill some space that you're probably gonna need after editing. Not to mention I think it'd really some of your repetitiveness. There were some clear points you seemed to be reaching for length, when a good reference would have filled the space well.
To go back to the intro and conclusion, I really enjoyed your use of quotations from your interview. It really captured what you were going for, as well as provided some really nice framing that, from a writers point of view, is just some bonus style points. That being said, the actual content doesn't quite match with the quality of your quote selection. The intro, first of all, is what I would deem adequate, but your hypothesis/thesis is rather generic. It's a line that just about anyone could've used in their papers. So I'd say just try to individualize it a little bit, perhaps after editing your body. The conclusion is similar, where it's adequate, but I was very much expecting to many readdress and specify your hypothesis you made at the beginning in the intro, but there didn't seem to be any trace of it. It'd be really solid if you could bring that back around, at least in some semblance.
My last big point would just be the clarity of some points in the paper. It feels, from my point of view, that you transition from some claims to another with little to no explanation at some point. It's hard to go through and quote what I mean, but I think if you read through some of my marks and such you'll understand what I mean. And as I said earlier, having a few more references will really help with that.
However, that being said, I'd look back over the last two paragraphs of the Non-academic section. Their both simple and short, but it follows a very clear and well organized structure, where it describes what you're talking about, why it's important, and then you synthesize it to the purpose. That's the general format that most of your paragraphs should have, I think, though adding some complexity to those two paragraphs wouldn't hurt.
To reiterate, the general feel for the paper was very good. One thing I didn't talk about was the organization, and that's because quite frankly I thought the simplicity was strong, and made it flow quite well overall. There's not much I'd change about that.
Overall the paper was well written. Word choice was very good and it was fairly easy to understand and follow.
ReplyDeleteThe first problem that I had with the paper was on page three, the second paragraph. At the end of this paragraph you call APA structure simple. While it is a very structured style of writing, I would not call it simple. I feel that there is a better word that you could use there than simple. I also would suggest that you talk more about why this structure is beneficial in the academic area of the field of psychology.
On page four in the second paragraph I was confused. I do not understand why having complicated jargon and technical terms would be unhelpful to someone who works in psychology. The entire section about language in academic writing could use more thorough explanation as it seems to contradict itself. You say that the language isn't complicated but then say it's hard to understand because of the way in which the language is used but then use quoted words (poachers and preclude) which suggests that the language is difficult. I think it'd help if instead of using the word simple language you said that they do not use specific language. It also doesn't make sense that you say that academic writing is tailored for others in the field but that they don't use language specific for people in the field.
I'd like you to compare and contrast APA and MLA more in the non-academic section. I think that if you were to do this it'd help to better make your argument. I do not understand though on page 5 when you say that having direct quotes in non-academic writings helps because it's familiar to the audience. This could use a little more explaining.