Project II: Sword Reviews
Self-Evaluation:
1. Focus
a. As in my first paper, I believe that my paper states a clear purpose intended for the reader and for the topic. I strove to make an attempt to relate various aspects of the Victorian treatment of animals in literature to one general topic and hopefully put my point across about my thesis, which was the fact that I believe that many depictions of Victorian animals have played a big role in the establishment of the sympathetic imagination. I additionally believe that information and details within the paper are extremely relevant and critical to the thesis. The conclusion, in addition, wraps up what I was trying to say throughout the whole paper.
b. On the 1-7 scale, I would rate the focus to be a 6.
2. Organization
a. The paper was clearly organized through the use of headings, at least that was the clear intention in a similar way to the first paper. And just like the first paper... The visual items in the paper accurately correspond with the verbal rhetoric. The pictures are integrated into the text. The captions, in addition, help to function with the paper. The pictures seem to be related to the particular sections in which they are placed and that they address. The only thing I could do differently is better form the website portion so the captions are more compatible with all web browsers. (I’ve noticed, in retrospect, that the captions for the pictures are jumbled when the user is not using FireFox.)
b. On the 1-7 scale, I would rate the organization to be a 6.
3. Flow
a. I was a little disappointed with the effect produced by the stories that I put in yet hadn’t read, but found it was necessary to the way the paper was written. So, it was a trade-off. At times I use too many commas, but it’s my style of writing and went back and tried to eliminate as many as possible. Overall, I think the organization works well to induce a good flow within the paper and the concept itself produces a good effect in relating certain characteristics of the project to the reader.
b. On the 1-7 scale, I would rate the flow to be a 6.
Reviews of others:
On mhv89’s Project II:
Focus: 7
This was a beautifully written paper that was a pleasure to read. The focus is maintained very clearly. The thesis is explicitly stated right off the bat. The details were all relevant, and the conclusion worked wonderfully.
Organization: 7
Great presentation and organization. I went through it so easily and the visuals add so well to the paper. Really, really well done. I wish I could say more, but I really can''t.
Flow: 7
Just a few clerical things to improve clarity: First, in the second sentence "a young adult fiction" doesn''t make sense. Something like "a piece of young adult fiction" or just "young adult fiction" would work. There doesn''t need to be a comma after "lessons that range from". In addition to that there doesn''t need to be as many commas in the following sentence either. Really pretty clear and easy to follow other than that. The layout and visuals, again, are awesomely done. So clean, so smooth. Like a Steely Dan album.
On postalservice’s Project II:
Focus: 7
The focus was clear as the crystalline waters of the Caribbean on a warm summer''s afternoon, breezy and saying, "Hey Paul, focus on the damn review." Oh yes, back to reality and what it''s about: I could clearly and easily see your focus in the paper. I thought altogether it was well-written and had no trouble getting through it. It maintained my attention (albeit a hard thing to do), and kept my interest. I''d recommend proofreading it a couple of times to make sure it all flows the way you want to, but I see no need for any major revisions. You have made my job easy. Thanks.
Organization: 7
Beautifully organized. Really. Classy, too, Allie. The color scheme of the blog even shows a knack for design. The way the pictures and the captions wove into the piece was really well done. The choice of pictures was wonderful, meaningful, and accented the piece brilliantly. Something about piñatas too, but I forgot where I was going with that comment... any-hoo, really though. Nice job. As for the actual literary organization, that was done extremely well too. I thought everything flowed smoothly, in a logical order, developed well, and transitioned perfectly. I just got to nitpick about one thing though. How do you really know what the pig Jude was asked to kill looks like? Because really if you Wikipedia "pig," you will find that they are actually a very diverse (and tasty) group of animals. Just picture a cute little pink one saying, "Hey, how about a Me-L-T?" Get it? Like B-L-T?
Flow: 7
It flowed better than 2 Pac. Which is saying a lot.
On Peter Pan’s Project II:
Focus: 4
I could not access this paper because I did not know what "username" and "password" I was supposed to supply.
Organization: 4
I could not access this paper because I did not know what "username" and "password" I was supposed to supply.
Flow: 4
I could not access this paper because I did not know what "username" and "password" I was supposed to supply.
On Jane Austen’s Project II:
Focus: 4
The first time I read your title I thought it said "Mills Like White Elephants" like the Hemingway story and I was so excited. But then I opened the page and realized it was actually a bit different, but still pretty good. The focus is clear, but its purpose is questionable. The essay seems like it intends to connect Mill and Buddhism and India. Yes, I see how that was accomplished, but the focus should be on something a little more than that in my opinion. The connection was established, but was never justified. Additionally the conclusion was somewhat irrelevant to the rest of the paper.
Organization: 4
The pictures were not functioning at all, leaving much to be visually desired from not only the page itself, but in the realm of how it all ended up looking (scrambled, seamlessly across the screen). It was hard to read all of it. The paper kind of trails on after the first paragraph and doesn''t really follow any logical sequence except that it continues making observations that Mill''s various works in some way connect to Buddhism and India. The way it goes about making those observations is somewhat unclear. The transitional devices were all rhetorical questions and sidebar commentary that seemed irrelevant to the actual topic and lent a conversationality to the piece that really bordered on transcription.
Flow: 4
The flow of the piece was hard to ride. Even though it turned out to be untrue, I was left with the feeling that there were just as many sentences that ended with a question mark as there were sentences that ended with a period. I felt there were actually many unanswered questions and opinions tossed in and not backed up by facts. Let''s take the following paragraph for instance: "Now connecting the dots to Buddhism becomes easier. Where was Buddhism founded? If you answered India then you are right. So now where do the schematics of Mill and India belong? If you answered Buddhism then you are correct. One might ask the meaning of this." This is not an infomercial or a game show, so I''m wondering why the clause "If you answered ... then you are right." is included. The open ended phrase "One might ask the meaning of this." only serves to further confuse and frankly annoy the reader.
Others reviews of mine with back reviews:
Focus (Overall quality: 5.8)
Reviewer 1
Your thesis starts, "Altogether, when viewing the individual authors'' works as a whole one can almost certainly imply..."
I would add a comma in between "whole one" so that it reads, "Altogether, when viewing the individual authors'' works as a whole, one can almost certainly imply..."
Back Review: Thank you. I appreciate the help with syntax.
Reviewer 2
PL’s Thesis statement: “Attitudes towards animal abusers formed, as societal apathy towards abusers was replaced with a prevailing sentiment of negative social stigma and eventually criminal responsibility.”
I understand this may not be your exact thesis; however, it is the gist of the paper. I feel you constantly support the changing perception of humans and animals throughout the paper. I felt the support of Carroll and Kipling was fantastic and you did a good job bringing those together throughout.
I did struggle to find your thesis in the first few lines because it is not immediately apparent. Here is a great summation of what you did in the paper:
“Through the work of Carroll and Kipling, it can be clearly seen that animals are much more than just slaves to the human condition, but instead are entities capable of teaching humans more about themselves than they may ever know.”
I would build thesis statement around that conclusion. Your entire paper is about it why not set it up in the thesis.
Back Review: Thank you.
Reviewer 3
Rudyard Kipling, particularly in his books Kim, The Jungle Books, and Just So Stories, illustrates a relationship between humans and animals that suggest a common respect and understanding. Lewis Carroll additionally does so through his books Alice?s Adventures in Wonderland, and Through the Looking Glass.
It''s a good thesis, but I wish you would mention more about Darwin. You skim over him, but I think integrating his ideas into your paper would strengthen it.
Back Review: Thank you.
Reviewer 4
This appears to be the thesis, "Altogether, when viewing the individual authors? works as a whole one can almost certainly imply that the social implications of this time period resulted in an unparalleled compassion and understanding towards animals that laid the framework for the current prevailing attitude towards animals present in society today." This paper has a good focus. Each paragraph is related to the thesis. You mention Darwin in your first paragraph, but don’t elaborate any further on him. You may wish to since Darwin can provide good non-fictional evidence to support your points. Try to find specific quotes from him that illustrate what you are saying.
Back Review: Thank you.
Reviewer 5
Good focus, the thesis is clearly stated and clearly followed. Very well written, elegant language, etc.
Back Review: Thank you.
Organization (Overall quality: 5.6)
Reviewer 1
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes to the first 5 questions. I think the last paragraph felt a little bit weaker compared to the rest of the paper, but I bet you were running low on time and energy so I understand because I did the same, but for the Bump revision, I would twerk this paragraph a little bit. Maybe write a little more in the conclusion and add a few examples of today... like more RSPCA stuff or examples on how the society of today results from the Victorian age.
Back Review: Thank you.
Reviewer 2
This is perhaps one of the strongest point of this paper. I felt the structure and implementation of Carroll and Kipling was a masterstroke of organization. Moreover, your paragraphs are solid and you stay on point within them. You use good transitional devices. The introduction needs to be rework, as it is a little confusing, but the conclusion is strong, logical, and succinct.
The only real problem with the organization is the visual images. Often, to fill the requirement, people put a picture of the writer or of a group (Kipling and RSPCA in this case). A graphical representation of facts discussed does not add to the work. Find the emotional aspect of the paper, and implement pictures that capture something abstract. You want the pictures to show something that words cannot express.
Back Review: Thank you.
Reviewer 3
Maybe focus on Darwin more. You mention him, but you don’t delve into the topic.
Back Review: Thanks.
Reviewer 4
This paper is well-organized. Again, use of support from Darwin would further help your organization and provide background. Also, make the conclusion tie in a little bit more with your thesis and introduction. The Biblical points are interesting; contrast them with Darwin in the first paragraph, or introduce these ideas then to entice the reader to look for more references later on (like the ones that appear in your conclusion). You may want to add more transitions, but overall I think that your paragraph structure works very well.
Point taken.
Back Review: Thanks.
Reviewer 5
The only discrepancy, which is arguably flow, is the order that the thesis states the authors, and then the fact that the authors are addressed in the opposite order through the paper. It''s just a bit disorienting at first.
Back Review: Good point. Thanks.
Flow (Overall quality: 5.6)
Reviewer 1
I did not find any fault in this. Your writing style never seemed fluffy to me.
Back Review: Thanks.
Reviewer 2
The flow of this paper was trouble by some grammatical errors that came from the upload of the website. Here is a small sample of what I see:
“A perfect example is the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, which boasts, ?The RSPCA?s vision is to work for a world in which all humans respect and live in harmony with all other members of the animal kingdom.?”
There a probably 50 question marks all over the document. I will not count off for them; I just thought you should know.
Also avoid the use of qualifiers: “For perhaps the first time in history”
Yeah this is a really good point. I need to figure out what exactly in the formatting causes some people to see question marks instead of punctuation.
Reviewer 3
Attitudes towards animal abusers formed, as societal apathy towards abusers was replaced with a prevailing sentiment of negative social stigma and eventually criminal responsibility. This sentence has two different tenses in the same sentence.
19th and early 20th centuries. Spell out nineteenth and twentieth.
Be sure to proofread and catch your minor mistakes.
Back Review: Thanks.
Reviewer 4
It appears that there are some question marks in the sentence before your image of the RSPCA where there should be quotation marks, as well as throughout the paper where there should be apostrophes.
Consider revising these sentences:
Paragraph 2: "By doing this, Carroll establishes the ability of animals to retain knowledge and understanding of the world around it."
Paragraph 4: In the Biblical story of creation the snake is forced to crawl on its belly, but not because of its own actions but because of the actions of something controlling it." The punctuation doesn''t hinder your writing, but the random question marks do. I know you know this is some sort of formatting error.
You use a lot of quotes that are good, but I think you could elaborate and throw some more of your ideas into the essay. Elaborate on how the idea of humanization affects older readers, not just children. You might discuss the characteristics of what it means to be human, or what humanization means to you, then use your quotes to support these ideas. The writing is clear and direct, but could be more relevant to the reader with a little bit of elaboration.
Thank you, these comments helped very much when doing my revisions - "Reviewer 4," whoever you are... you have been most helpful.
Back Review: Thanks.
Reviewer 5
It all flows very well, no noticeable disjunctions except around the biblical references. I really, really like the way you bring it back to the subservience of animals in Western society, but I''d prefer to see this all integrated a bit better, a smoother transition. Likewise, in the final paragraph, you throw the biblical contrast at us pretty heavily, without ever taking the time to develope this throughout the entirety of the paper.
Back Review: Thanks.
