Critical Analysis (Summary and Evaluation combined) Workshop

My paper was reviewed by my peers now it need to be revised and edited. A the bottom is both of my peers reviews

The Summary

1. Does the summary clearly introduce the writer, article title and publication?

To be honest, I was not sure of who wrote this article or what the title was.

2. How effectively does the summary convey the central issue / problem that the author addresses and explain how he or she feels about the issue?

The central issue that is addressed in the article is clear. In the summary stating, “This article aimed to explore traditional mass media as an antecedent to non-directed self-disclosure online. The paper acknowledges the new improvements of the internet, which are believed to be essential, allowing users to communicate with a global audience and make intimate personal information available to the audience.”

3. How successfully does the summary help the reader understand the key points of the author’s argument?

I think the summary is written well in terms of understanding the key points of the author’s argument. For example, “The show focused on the unscripted interaction of amateur actors to give a representation of what is happening in our societies today. However, according to the network provider of tech companies, the growth of the show is a business opportunity since it attracts a lot of interest among young youths (Michael & Derek, 2009.)”

4. Are signal phrases (“Hong shows,” “the author suggests,” etc.) used to make an obvious distinction between information presented in the article and the writer’s ideas

There are no signal phrases in the summary that I could find. There were some in the critique.

5. Are descriptive verbs (“Valdez indicates” rather than “Valdez is saying that”) used to describe the actions of the text?

Yes! Ex: The paper acknowledges. People predicted.

6. Does the summary incorporate transitions (“Additionally,” “Moreover,” “As a result,” “Conversely,” “Next,” etc.) to help guide the reader through the progression of ideas

Yes, the writer uses transitions throughout the paper.

Ex: Additionally;

I think that there could be more use of these transitions throughout the summary.

There is a lot of use of however, maybe change a few of those to other terms.

7. Is the summary free from grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors?

There are spots throughout the paper where TV is spelled as Tv. But other than that everything else looks good!

8. How would you characterize the tone of the summary? Is it neutral and objective?

I think that the summary is pretty neutral in portraying the information but you can tell that the article was subjective in its views.

9. Is the summary clearly organized? Does it mirror the sequence of content presented in the original article?

Yes, I think the summary is clear and organized. It was easy to follow and understand.

10. How closely does the Summary follow APA citation and documentation style?

This summary follows APA citation style requirements. For some reason, it opened on my computer on different spaced pages than I am sure it looked on the writers.

The Evaluation

11. Is the claim clearly expressed? Is it “debatable” and stated as an assertion?

I think that the claim was clearly expressed. I do think that the writer focused on a lot of things that made the paper good but only pointed out one aspect of where it could be improved. There was not much of an analysis to this claim either.

12.Does the claim offer a meaningful contribution to the discussion at hand? How might the claim be improved?

I think that the claim is meaningful and is contributing to the paper but there could have been more of an analysis.

13. Are convincing points (or “reasons”) presented immediately following the claim?

There are points following the positive claims but there is not much of an analysis to the negative claims.

14. Does the writer provide at least two pieces of evidence to support each point? Would content from a second disciplinary source help to further develop points in the body of the paper? If so, what type of disciplinary content might be most useful?

There seems to be sufficient evidence supporting each of the positive claims. Explaining why they contribute to the article to make it better. I think that bringing in more evidence for the negative analysis of the paper could use a secondary disciplinary source to help. I think searching for another reality TV study would be assistive in making the points.

15. Is each example analyzed in sufficient depth? Does the writer clearly explain how each piece of evidence relates to the claim?

No I do not think that they are analyzed with much depth. I think you could cut out a few of the aspects that have weaker support and focus on going into more depth on the points you have stronger support for.

16. Are transitions used appropriately? Where could the addition of a transitional device help to connect ideas and improve flow?

Yes, I think they are used appropriately. I think a place where this can be improved would be in between the different claims of the analysis. I was not entirely sure when the point was switching to the next.

17. Is the paper written in a semi-formal – formal style (e.g., free from contractions, slang/conversational language, etc.) to appeal to fellow scholars?

Yes

18. How effectively is APA (formatting and citation) used in the paper?

From what I know, the citations look correct along with the formatting.

19. Does the evaluation discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the article in sufficient detail?

I think there could have been more evaluation on the weaknesses of the article.

20. What 3 CHANGES could significantly improve the readability and fluidity of the paper?

– Adding more transitions through the critique.

– Strengthen a few of the points that you have a lot of evidence for rather than lightly skimming over multiple aspects of the paper.

– Make sure to include the Writer and title in the summary so readers know what you’re talking about!

21. What 3 CHANGES could significantly improve the effectiveness of the writer’s argument?

– Adding more critiques to the analysis. There are a lot of things listed about what is great about the paper, but what could be improved?

– Instead of focusing on individual aspects of the layout of the paper, combine those points to draw attention to the authors dedication to their research and including outside research to contribute to their work.

– I was not sure what the article was about in the beginning of your analysis, I think that it would be effective to go over what the article was titled and what exactly they were analyzing.

The summary doesn’t clearly introduce the writer, article title, and publication. The summary of the article is strong and this could be fixed by adding a couple simple sentences at the beginning of the paper. 2. The summary conveys the central issue / problem that the author addresses and explains what they think about the issue. 3. The summary helps the reader understand the key points of the author’s argument. 4. Signal phrases are used to make an obvious distinction between information presented in the article and the writer’s ideas. 5. Descriptive verbs are used to describe the actions of the text. 6. The summary does incorporate transitions. 7. The summary is free from grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. 8. The tone of the summary is fairly objective. The summary is the strongest point of the paper- the evaluation could be spoken more objectively (less I statements). 9. The summary is clearly organized and makes sense to the reader. 10. The summary does follow APA standards and you use quotes effectively. The Evaluation 11. Your claim isn’t super clear and could stand to be more “arguable”. 12. Your evaluation was adding meaning to the paper, but the claim was unclear. 13. The points are not given directly after a claim 14. The writer does provide evidence for their paper and relates back to the author regularly. 15. Examples could be gone through more thoroughly. 16. Transitions are used to show ideas. 17. The paper needs to be slightly more formal- avoid I statements 18. APA is effectively used, 19. The evaluation shows strengths and weaknesses. 20. 1. Make the claim more clear. 2. Argue the point more clearly. 3. Enhance the fluidity of the paper.
KAITLIN YARMAN, Oct 19 at 11:40pm

21. What 3 CHANGES could significantly improve the effectiveness of the writer’s argument? Commit to a strong claim. Bring your claim to light in more of the paper’s paragraphs. Explain your ideas in a more cohesive manner.