It was difficult for me to see how the 80s research paper was a research paper. It seemed more like a dull summary of Torii's research effort. During the paper, it was unclear what she was trying to say. There were no questions and nothing new was discovered. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but the paper had very little structure to it and simply rambled about one source she found and moved on to another. On the first page, the author references a book, "After reading my book, I know that the eighties had a depressing nature to them..." (pg. 1), but she never tells us what book she read. Right off the back, her sources are unclear. She writes on and on about different unimportant issues that have nothing to do with the topic, which is unknown until the conclusion.
If I had to review this paper, the first thing I'd have the author do is set this paper aside as a first draft, which is how it seems to me. Then I'd have her write out the topic and main points of each paragraph and how they connect with the paper's topic. This should ultimately change the structure of the paper and help the flow of thoughts. The author should attempt to express her thoughts more clearly and in a concise way, otherwise, the reader (me) is bored.
I'd have to say that the paper lacked an interesting enough topic to keep a reader interested. It may have been too broad to research properly. The author should have chosen one particular direction to focus her research, not go back and forth within her paper. The fact that she can't decide in the final draft makes this sound like research notes. There are several simple grammar mistakes that could distract a reader from the authors point as well.
The "F-word" paper.... hmm.... first porn now this?? At least this paper was short. I don't think I could have read this sort of paper if it lasted 7 to 8 pages. I'm trying to think objectively about this paper, the structure not the content. In my opinion, this didn't seem thought out. It seemed like the author just wanted to state her opinion of the f-word rather than explore the actual word. She only uses one source, that I can recall: a dictionary. That doesn't seem like enough sources for a paper this controversial.
I'd improve the paper by changing the topic.
You make some excellent points about the '80s paper; it most certainly was first draft quality. I hope you can bring the same insight to your peer review group this week! I also appreciated your comments during class. I think you have a very good handle on how to improve writing, which will be an asset as you sit down and work with your own draft after peer review this week.
ReplyDelete