Skip to main content

Comment Here for Peer Reviews

Thanks :))

Comments

  1. Overall, I thought the paper was very well written. You clearly did the research and knew exactly what you were talking about. The paper flowed really well and the organization made sense. There were a few times were I felt like you repeated your ideas in the same sentence.
    There are some things i think you can improve on. For example, some of your explanations could be a little bit more in depth because i feel like you keep it really short. Also, i feel like you could have used your interview a little more. the interview is a great resource and you did utilize it, but i would have like to see it more. also the citations could have been better. if you just google them yo should be able to find how to cite websites and interview etc. some of your paragraphs had really good transitions, but the paper would flow a lot better if you transitioned between paragraphs.
    Overall, I thought the paper was really well written and a lot of the flaws are really picky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After reading this paper I would say that you did an above average job with your first draft. You clearly worked hard and did the research required to write this paper to the best of your ability.
      One way you could make your paper better would be to get to the point a little faster and shorten some run on sentences. Getting to the point will help during your paper and give the reader the best impression in the shortest amount of time. The second thing is to work on punctuation errors for example on page four I found a few. In the second paragraph and on page five second paragraph. However, those are only some of the punctuation errors. Lastly I would challenge you to maybe reword some of your quotes and not quote them. It isn't a problem, but I feel like you would benefit more as a writer if you found a way to reword a few of the quotes and keep the same ideas. At the end of the day I would want to say that I found your first draft to be above average and a good start at something great.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

IMRad Intro and Methods

Introduction In social psychology has established effective compliance techniques such as the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. This strategy states simply that, “ agreeing to a small request increases the likelihood of agreeing to a second, larger request”(McLeod, pp4, 2014). The original experiment on the foot-in-the-door phenomenon was done by Freedman and Fraser in 1966. In the original study, the prediction was that if a small request was asked first and the person agrees to the smaller request, the person is more likely to agree to a larger request after. This prediction was supported in their data which showed that, “Over 50% of the subjects in the Performance condition agreed to the larger request, while less than 25% of the One-Contact condition agreed to it. Thus it appears that obtaining compliance with a small request does tend to increase subsequent compliance” (Freedman and Fraser, 198, 1966).  This is important because this significant data supports that the foot-in...