Black Holes

While there are many things that really work in this scientific journal article, there are points when my attention is completely lost. Beginning with the parts which work well, the author does a great job beginning the article with a unique definition and using commonalities to relate difficult concepts. The four line introduction explaining how Einstein was wrong really shows how large this topic is. It demonstrates how complex the topic is and how it is easily misunderstood. At the same time, this abstract defines a black hole in simple words. "A collapsed star" is actually what a black hole is, and that is how it is defined. Simple, yet understood. At the same time, when it gets to the later paragraphs and the finer detail, the author does a good job relating facts to common items. For example, saying that a "sugar cube sized" fragments weighs a ton really helps relate the ideas. On that topic though, all of these ideas compound on each other. There is a constant pounding of information at the beginning with no real ease into anything. Numbers are getting thrown around. Magnitudes of size and weight are compiling. There is very little discussion in between each inset of fact and it all becomes a lot to comprehend.

Madeline Inquiry Feedback

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Author: Madeline de Mello

Peer: Craig McKenzie

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

The author poses the question: are libraries really useful in todays society? It is expressed very clearly in the introduction as well as the title.

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (Note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author talks a lot about her personal experiences and tells a story somewhat to keep attention. The paper effectively expresses this interest.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

There is a lot of prior knowledge in the paper. Most of this comes from the authors personal experiences and observations in a variety of libraries.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The tone throughout is very informal. I think this is a good way to express the inquiry topic. At the same time though, I think the parenthesis are misused. Usually, when I see parenthesis, I skim over the ideas within them. I think the thoughts are very good and they should be used within a dependent clause offset by commas.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

The tone is very consistent. I think the author does a good job sticking to the informal voice and not shifting.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

This topic is very versatile. The author does a good job discussing libraries in general and specific libraries as well as their specific uses. I think this goes a long way in a paper like this.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

This paper had a lot of ideas in it and while there was some preliminary research,  I think the author could go further. First, there should be more quantitative ideas, such as statistics, introduced throughout the paper to back up claims. This would help support some of the more general ideas and bring magnitude to them. There is also room for more ‘expert’ observations.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author assumes that what is happening here, is happening everywhere. Maybe in areas where not everyone has access to the Internet at home, the library is used more? I think the quantitative data would really help here.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branches of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

Research was used well but it was not really taken full advantage of. I would like to see more quotes, as there are very few. Additionally, I think the information from the sources could be used more in depth.

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

My attention was held pretty well throughout the essay. At some points, because the essay is exploring so many different directions, it does get somewhat hard to follow.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The topic seems to generally stay at the same level of detail throughout. While I think it works as is, by going farther in depth with your research discussion you could do this is you see fit.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

The conculsion functions to tie together loose ends and sumerize the main points of the paper. I think it works well as the conclusion and really emphasizes your view.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

I think it does a great job at not only summarizing but tying together the paper. While theres not much I would add, maybe discussing solutions to your answer since your topic allows for this.

Sieu Feedback

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Author: Sieu Tran

Peer: Craig McKenzie

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

The question is something to the extent of: what happens after we die? It is pretty clear. Make sure you check your grammer though. “Grew up in a catholic family” should be “growing up in a catholic family.”

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (Note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

While the topic holds interest alone, the authors inclusion of personal support helps keep the readers attention. It is held through the telling of a story.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

There is a lot of knowledge that comes from personal experience. Everyone has a stake in the inquiry because everyone dies.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The tone is personal yet reserved. While it is in first person, it gives formal vibes which I think are necessary for this topic. The tone is handled very well with the author’s voice. This topic obviously matters to the author because of his personal experiences with death.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

The tone breaks every few paragraphs to halt the story to insert research and other’s ideas. I think it would work better if in these more formal paragraphs some informal references were added.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

This topic appropriately moves from a very specific situation to more of a vague one. The story of his grandfather is told and broadened into death in general. I think this is done well.  

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The author does a great job at research! There are many ideas introduced but they were all well thought out. If anything needs to be added, instead of adding new topics, I suggest going deeper into the contemplation of research already done.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

There isn’t really a lot of questioning going on here. There is some exploration of both the science and religious sides of death, but I think it would be helpful to somewhat question reality and the findings for what the truth really is?

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branches of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

Research is taken from many different resources.  The ideas that were researched very well, but I wish there were some numbers for the more concrete thinkers to grasp. Maybe find a poll of who believes in what, when it comes to dying. I’m sure this can be found on the internet.

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The organization is by far the strong point of this essay and keeps my attention. The distinct sections investigating one side of the argument makes the entire inquiry easy to follow and stay attentive to.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The topic seems to broaden as the essay continues. It starts with a personal story and adds to that by talking about death in general. I think this strategy works really well!

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

The conclusion acts to bring everything together and add some more touchy feely stuff. It works to bring importance and personality too the essay. Just be careful about being so morbid.  

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

I think it does an effective job wrapping up the paper. It begins and ends personally and I feel like there is a sense of finishing upon reading the conclusion with all questions answered.

Ally Inquiry Feedback

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

The question is stated very clearly in the last part of the introductory paragraph: Are colleges doing an effective job at offering healthy food choices.

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (Note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The topic explored is interesting to the college audience. Many people are fascinated over heath and eating right is a big media endorsed initiative. It could be improved upon be adding additional coverage of both sides of the argument. The author makes it clear that we should be interested as it impacts our health.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

The author’s stake lies in her being a college student herself and eating campus food. While she has knowledge firsthand, she does a good job bringing in many other peoples ideas.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

Compared to the other essays people wrote, this essay has more of a formal tone. This is alright though, because the tone stays constant and evokes a certain persona which takes on many perspectives.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

While the tone is mainly formal throughout, there are a few slips of first person. This usually isn’t an issue but is a little weird to come across, especially after the first paragraph.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

The paper is fairly specific with the examples chosen. There are specific restaurant details, specific college details, etc.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The ideas are really good, and the thought process is evident. However, the question is not equally explored on both sides and there is an obvious bias from the beginning. There needs to be more organization with the paper. Transitions and breaking up longer paragraphs would also be helpful.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

There are a few side questions and assumptions which distract slightly from the paper. Because these questions aren’t explored too deeply though, I don’t think they really hurt the paper. They don’t make it better though.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branchs of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

I liked how research was pulled from all over the place: surveys, personal experience, and the experts on the internet. On the other hand, I think they could all be used a bit more and the experts could become a larger part in better depth. The quotes were also useful.

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The attention, for me really lagged during the long paragraphs. Sometimes there just wasn’t much going on as far as discussion or evidence from a solid source. The opinions lost me sometimes.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The inquiry does become much broader. I think the author stopped at an appropriate point: any broader and the discussion and significance to the question would have been lost.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

There is a lot going on in the conclusion. New ideas and information is introduced along side the wrapping up of the paper. It becomes a little much. I would suggest focusing on the ideas discussed in the body and making sure to tie up loose ends.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

This kind of feels more like another body paragraph. It would be better if there was another paragraph added to just tie up the inquiry and answer the question.

My Dinner Table

Discussing a topic as complex as visual correction requires input. While I am one person and have my one opinions on the matter, I want to explore all sides of both arguments. To do that, I will invite several people to my dinner table.

1) An eye doctor: Who knows more about vision than someone who works with the eye on a daily basis? No one! Either through a personal connection or through internet articles, I will consult the opinions of an optometrist to determine the best method of vision correction.
2) The daily glasses wearer: Through an online survey, I will consult those who primarily wear just glasses. I want to know why they chose glasses as their means for correcting their vision.
3) The daily contacts wearer: Through an online survey, I will consult those who primarily wear just contacts. I want to know why they chose contacts as their means for correcting their vision.
4) Those who wear both: This group should be particularly interesting. I'm interested to see what strengths and weaknesses seen in both.
5) A historian: I want to know the history of vision correction to see how it has evolved into today.
6) Designer: We all know that a major reason for wearing contacts: aesthetics. I want to see what is considered fashionable in the realm of glasses and maybe see why people still think contacts look better.
7) Biologist: Vision has to do with how light is perceived in the retina. Does the method of vision correction chosen affect anything from a biological standpoint?
8) Psychology: Some people think they look really good in glasses. Others do not. What in our brain picks up the perception of how we make ourselves out to look/

What am I questioning and why?

I close my right eye. Blurry. I close my left eye. Clear. "How is this possible", I thought? At every past eye appointment my vision was perfect. Heck, it was better than perfect. What's going on? How is my vision blurry? I couldn't understand. I am a senior in high school, at this point, and always told myself, "I will never wear glasses." When I walk into the chain eye store with my $99 pair of glasses and eye exam coupon, I never intend to use it. I tell the doctor, I want contacts. When I walk out though, what is making my eyesight like an HD TV? Glasses. Full framed, silver, 'made in china' glasses. I lost.

Only six months later, I go back to the same McDonald's of vision correction. I wait in the waiting room for about 10 minutes and then walk back to the exam room. After a few measurements and a check of my prescription, I open the backing to a plastic reservoir. There were the contacts that would free me from those hideous metal frames. That first time it took me an hour to get the contact lenses into my red, wattery, swollen eyes. My eyes were mad at me and I could feel it.

Seven days later, eyes still not very happy with me, I wake up and put on my glasses. This is a victory. I am freed from all of the troubles that contacts caused me. My frames are my friend, ever-present yet reliable. While I've made my choice, I am curious to see what everyone else thinks. There are those that prefer glasses for their style and health.  Then there are those who swear by their invisible alternative. Well, what really is better? Glasses or contacts?

Overdocumenting and Overacheiving

The argument is all about trying to prove a point and get everyone on your side. On the other hand, the inquiry is more of an exploration. In A.J. Jacobs' inquiry into "The Overly Documented Life," the inquiry strategy is used. Jacobs begins by introducing a subject which is an idea of walking around recording every moment of his life. He does this in order to inquire in to what the effects might be. He then writes a generally informal essay using facts, thoughts, and observations in an attempt to answer his question. All sides are examined to create a well balanced argument that, yes, carrying around a camera changes the way people act around someone.

What I really like about the essay is the voice and focus. With regards to voice, Jacobs is more informal. He is not sounding 'pushy' nor is there any clear bias. He simply inserts all of the information available to him in order answer the question. The insertion of stories, such as the one where he tries to gossip but is instead ignored. Personal flair makes Jacobs not only credible but interesting as it is obvious that he is interested in his subject. The focus in the essay makes it very easy to follow. Everything discussed is relevant to the question. The personal stories are relevant, the  images are relevant, and the facts are relevant. While they all answer the question in the same fashion, they act as compounding evidence not redundant facts.

The Unitasker

 AJ Jacob’s writing is inspiring and makes me want to try unitasking for one day. First, the way is structures his essay is clear to follow and really relays his point. The essay is structured into sections with defined subtitles. One knows what they’re about to read and they are mentally prepared to focus on it. This is almost how Jacob’s focuses on his single tasks. Next, Jacob’s is sure to bring in personal stories and several expert opinions. Not only does this provide ethos behind the writing, but it also provides for some interest. His hook at the beginning answers why he is asking to what extent can we unitask. Personal stories continue into his sections. By the time he begins talking about his quite dinner with his wife, it is clear that he is taking his experiment all the way. The personal connection makes the audience develop a relationship with the author and continue interest in what he is saying. I enjoyed the testimony of the experts as they really answered the effects. How multitasking was dangerous, as proven through statistics and studies.

The major question Jacob’s is asking is what effect unitasking has and how possible it is to attain. He begins by giving historic examples. When there was no television or Internet, unitasking was normal. Then, explaining how distractions have evolved, he examines the modern day unitask. So while he proves that it is or at least was possible in the past, I feel as if he is infinitely approaching a limit with modern applications. No matter how much he is trying, he still is constantly getting distracted and thinking of other tasks even when physically only doing one thing. Even on his last day he slips up.