Scientific Feature C/C

Student Sample #1 and #6

The author picked a very interesting topic as it is more of an uncommon topic and yet its ethical component is very interesting. I really enjoyed the development of the topic as the paper progressed. Each paragraph smoothly transitions into the next. The paragraphs were focused, which helped the audience keep interest. At the same time though, none of the information was random, but all related back to the topic and investigated further into fining. At the same time though, the introduction and first few paragraphs poorly introduced the topic and i didn't understand full what was going on until i was a few paragraphs in. It is clear a lot of research went into this paper and the evidence is strongly supported.

Comparatively,  I really enjoyed sample #6 because of its focus and organization. The essay successfully introduces the subject of electrical vehicles and makes the topic interesting and entertaining. I really liked the subsections into the different sections because it allowed for catigorical organization where the topics were well focused without interference. The topic also looks to be broad yet the specifics are well investigated. There are also implications discussed, but I think the author could have gone further there. I will integrate the idea of subtitles in my paper to organize the many ideas I want to discuss.

Comparing Inquiries

Sample Essay #2 and #11

Sample essay #2 investigates the potential controversy regarding aspartame. I enjoyed the essay for the most part, mainly due to the human element present though out the paper. The author introduces herself as a diabetic and frequent user of the product. The outcome of aspartame is very near and dear to her. She also creates a sense of urgency as she relays the idea of most of the population consuming the chemical. Additionally, she tells of the potential it has as a carcinogenic chemical. While she states that it may be harmful, she equally supports the side that it may not be toxic, creating a well balanced and non-bias view. I would have to say, that while her informal language is ok, it is way to informal for this serious of a topic. She could still incorporate her own personal story while getting rid of all of the contractions and slang which affect the authors ethos. Also, at times, especially in paragraph two, the inquiry starts to sound much like a rant. There are too many explanation points and they begin to loose impact. She says the same think about 10 different times about how bad this could affect her. That's nice but move on, answer the question "so what", and go a different direction. Personally, I lost interest in these sections where she said the same thing again and again.

On the other hand, the essay about urinal etiquette was hilarious, informing, and engaging. While I don not really have anything negitive to say, in contrast to essay #2, this topic is much more appropriate for the informal language used. While being informal though, the topic is much heavily researched: observation, practical application, personal experience, and analyzing other studies. Because of all of this information and well versed argument, the author keeps the ethos needed to seriously argue his point. At no point was I bored, and I think this was because of the conversation and instructive like tone. It is relateable, for men at least. I enjoyed how the author explored all possible sides he felt could answer the question and was not afraid to dismiss a possible answer after investigating it. Overall, excellent paper and well researched topic!

Peer Review 3

Jamie Kraft

Peer Review and Commentary—Science Feature

The Lead:

How does the lead pull the reader in and entice her to read on?  Is it surprising, or are claims made that are common knowledge (note: the reader shouldn’t be able to say, ‘well duh.’)?  Is it effective?  Can it be made more effective?  (think details, human drama, evocative language—why do/don’t you want to read on?)

This paragraph can defiantly be made more effective. Most of the information is pretty well known and it does not introduce the topic: electronic cigarettes. The quote was kind of interesting but didn’t really still interesting in me. Also, look at the syntax- some phrases were awkward

Does the lead give a clear indication of what the story will be about, or rely on mystery, or both?  Would more of a focus be helpful?  Is the reader aware of the importance of a topic—why it matters and is worth learning about?  Adversely, if for more entertainment purposes, is the topic engaging enough to compel reading?

It talks about cigarettes but doesn’t even mention the main topic: e-cigarettes. Going from broad, cigarettes, to narrow, their electronic alternative, would be more helpful in focusing. Health is briefly discussed as an answer to why this topic matters.

Organization:

Consider how the story is structured.  Chronological, thematic, chapter/section-based, inquiry-driven?  Is it effective?  Be specific—if a paragraph doesn’t transition well into the next, mention it and provide suggestions for improvement.

The feature is generally well structured. Each paragraph has its own idea and dwells a bit on that. It flows chronologically. It feels more like an argument though…. Transitions are basically absent and should be added to help with flow.

Is each paragraph well focused, or are several ideas competing for attention?  How can better focus be achieved?

Each paragraph focuses on one idea! Great! It would be nice to see some more focus and depth into each of the ideas though. It feels as if the surface is just being skimmed. Dare to dive deeper.

Are there certain points (factual or narrative based) that require more development?  Are you, the reader, unclear at certain points?  Are any ideas superfluous or distracting?

Yes. There are points where some more factual data can be inputted because I read something and my first thought is I know that that’s not true… One part I was just really confused about was where you said age to smoke is unlimited? What does that mean? I don’t think unlimited is the correct word.

Balance of human interest and information.  Point out sections that become too bogged down in dry facts or heavily specialized concepts.  Adversely, find sections that rely on narrative without giving the reader proper background information and factual points of reference.

Most of what is included is just data and facts compiled into a paper. It would be nice for it to flow as a story or even add some metaphor or comparison to tie it back to the human element.

Are claims backed up by examples, evidence, research?  Are sensory details employed effectively?  Are abstractions made concrete through use of examples and details?

There is some evidence of research through the mention of sources in paragraphs. Adding specific states that outlawed public smoking would help. Also, prove to me the information that you’re giving me. Are e-cigarettes really formally known as electronic? Are they not still know as that? Are they really the most used alternative? I don’t believe that…

How is the story concluded?  Does it wrap up the topic neatly and provide closure?  Does it ask bigger questions or compel the reader to search for more?  Are you left wanting more (and is this a good thing)?  Is it effective?

It wraps up by attacking electronic cigarettes as more of a drug than a quitting tool. This is where it really sounds like an argument and not a scientific feature. The questions asked are not really that big and I don’t really want more at this point. I wouldn’t say that its effective. To make it so, simply tie up loose ends and look at the broader, world impact. Introducing hookah makes it confusing too- stay focused.

Voice and Audience

Characterize the story’s voice and tone?  Is it suitable for the topic?  Is it engaging?  Is it consistent throughout the piece?  If first person POV is used, is this effective or jarring (remember, most story’s should rely on the strength of the topic for engagement, not the evidence of authorial intrusion).

Informal tone is fine. There are WAY too many contractions though which is not appropriate to use for a  scientific journal. The informal language doesn’t really give this paper anything since there is no story attached.

Try to characterize the audience.  What venue (publication) do you think this story suits?  Why?  Does the author effectively address this audience (too dumbed-down or sensational, too dry and esoteric)?

The audience is likely young adult audience. It gives of the feeling of an online journal topic investigating the harmful effects of cigarettes. It is a bit too dumbed-down and it would be nice to see a bit more depth.

Mechanics

Mark any ineffective or over-used word/phrase choices.  Mark any repetitive sentence structures.  Offer advice on vocabulary, syntax, and sentence structure. Mark other grammar issues and typos.

There was some awkward syntax, especially in the first few paragraphs. Also, cigarettes in the last paragraph  are not possessive.

Peer Review 2

Jazmine

Peer Review and Commentary—Science Feature

The Lead:

How does the lead pull the reader in and entice her to read on?  Is it surprising, or are claims made that are common knowledge (note: the reader shouldn’t be able to say, ‘well duh.’)?  Is it effective?  Can it be made more effective?  (think details, human drama, evocative language—why do/don’t you want to read on?)

Make this a cery active paragraph. “Scan through” instead of hypothetical. It will make it a stronger introduction. The rhetorical questions are generally effective. It isn’t really surprising, but relatable.

Does the lead give a clear indication of what the story will be about, or rely on mystery, or both?  Would more of a focus be helpful?  Is the reader aware of the importance of a topic—why it matters and is worth learning about?  Adversely, if for more entertainment purposes, is the topic engaging enough to compel reading?

I really like your focus on the science within the music. I think this is an under researched area and it sparks my interest for sure. The lead does indicate what the story will be about. You could do a bit more implication of why the reader should care though. “So what?”

Organization:

Consider how the story is structured.  Chronological, thematic, chapter/section-based, inquiry-driven?  Is it effective?  Be specific—if a paragraph doesn’t transition well into the next, mention it and provide suggestions for improvement.

I really like your transitions! You wrap up one paragraph and go right into the next. The topics flow one after the other and are related. At the same time each paragraph has its own subtopic  and focus. I think more can be said though about why the audience should care. Thematic structure is good.

Is each paragraph well focused, or are several ideas competing for attention?  How can better focus be achieved?

All of the paragraphs are really good and well focused. The last body paragraph about ASD really throws me off though. I don’t know what to think because it has nothing to do with the past paragraphs and seems jumbled together.

Are there certain points (factual or narrative based) that require more development?  Are you, the reader, unclear at certain points?  Are any ideas superfluous or distracting?

Yes, a few. I think the research is really well done but that more could be said in general. Dive deeper and tell people why they should care. How does music impact everyone? Is music required in a persons like or merely indispensible?

Balance of human interest and information.  Point out sections that become too bogged down in dry facts or heavily specialized concepts.  Adversely, find sections that rely on narrative without giving the reader proper background information and factual points of reference.

The topic lends itself to this being a more informal paper with strong human ties. You could speak less to the audience though. Less you and we and more of who you researched. Don’t make assuming statements because that is not solid research and you don’t know how I feel. Music is very interpretational.

Are claims backed up by examples, evidence, research?  Are sensory details employed effectively?  Are abstractions made concrete through use of examples and details?

Yes! This is very well researched and I bet that the current sources could be used to finish the paper through the addition of concrete examples. As far as sensory, how does one feel, physiologically, when listening to music? I think hormones would be good to talk about more. Do certain hormones get released with certain music?

How is the story concluded?  Does it wrap up the topic neatly and provide closure?  Does it ask bigger questions or compel the reader to search for more?  Are you left wanting more (and is this a good thing)?  Is it effective?

The conclusion is very blah… It doesn’t really say much or do everything. Tie up loose ends and then look at the big picture. Connect in a universal way where everyone can see the implications. Tie your paper together.

Voice and Audience

Characterize the story’s voice and tone?  Is it suitable for the topic?  Is it engaging?  Is it consistent throughout the piece?  If first person POV is used, is this effective or jarring (remember, most story’s should rely on the strength of the topic for engagement, not the evidence of authorial intrusion).

The story is rather informal. This works, but the “yous” need to be taken out and replaced with more formal language. Talking to the audience is somewhat uncomfortable with such a perceptive topic.

Try to characterize the audience.  What venue (publication) do you think this story suits?  Why?  Does the author effectively address this audience (too dumbed-down or sensational, too dry and esoteric)?

This would be really good in a cognitive or psychological jorurnal. It discusses a lot of basic psychology and implications of such would be very compelling. The author is almost to the point, and will be after going just a little deeper, to effectivle address the audience.

Mechanics

Mark any ineffective or over-used word/phrase choices.  Mark any repetitive sentence structures.  Offer advice on vocabulary, syntax, and sentence structure. Mark other grammar issues and typos.

 Youtube or log on to spotify is weird syntax. In general, examine your sentence structure because it is very similar at times and becomes boring. No other grammar or typos that I saw.

Peer Review 1

Sarah Ahart

Peer Review and Commentary—Science Feature

The Lead:

How does the lead pull the reader in and entice her to read on?  Is it surprising, or are claims made that are common knowledge (note: the reader shouldn’t be able to say, ‘well duh.’)?  Is it effective?  Can it be made more effective?  (think details, human drama, evocative language—why do/don’t you want to read on?)

Beautiful introduction! Like really well constructed. It is interesting, introduces the subject, and new information to me. VERY effective at drawing in attention.

Does the lead give a clear indication of what the story will be about, or rely on mystery, or both?  Would more of a focus be helpful?  Is the reader aware of the importance of a topic—why it matters and is worth learning about?  Adversely, if for more entertainment purposes, is the topic engaging enough to compel reading?

It clearly introduces the topic in a relaxed manner through the telling of a story. The personal human element is clear very early on in the paper.

Organization:

Consider how the story is structured.  Chronological, thematic, chapter/section-based, inquiry-driven?  Is it effective?  Be specific—if a paragraph doesn’t transition well into the next, mention it and provide suggestions for improvement.

The feature starts out with the basics by defining what synestisia really is in a relatable way It then dives into exploring each face in focus as well as the historical and current understandings. If you need to up your word count, it would be nice to hear more implications. Dig deeper into why all of this really matters and try to evoke some emotion from the reader. I also really like your transitions where you sum up the last paragraph and start a new one.

Is each paragraph well focused, or are several ideas competing for attention?  How can better focus be achieved?

Each paragraph focuses on one idea! Great! It would be nice to see some more focus and depth into each of the ideas though. While you’re already getting technical and specific, look into some of the impacts. Relate to other conditions maybe?

Are there certain points (factual or narrative based) that require more development?  Are you, the reader, unclear at certain points?  Are any ideas superfluous or distracting?

Your bases are covered and you have all the development needed to produce a good paper. Everything is clearly explained. It would be nice to hear a bit more about the impact that this has on the person and people around them. Is this just something they have to deal with? Why? Why should I care about this topic?

Balance of human interest and information.  Point out sections that become too bogged down in dry facts or heavily specialized concepts.  Adversely, find sections that rely on narrative without giving the reader proper background information and factual points of reference.

Most of the paper includes the human element from early in the paper. I really like how the information just flows seamlessly from paragraph to paragraph and the human element just stays constant. I guess it helps that this is a human condition…

Are claims backed up by examples, evidence, research?  Are sensory details employed effectively?  Are abstractions made concrete through use of examples and details?

Everything seems to be clearly cited and explained. Try bringing in more sensory clues to help the audience relate physically and emotionally to the paper. I think this is a really cool topic and the paper could really impact the audience.

How is the story concluded?  Does it wrap up the topic neatly and provide closure?  Does it ask bigger questions or compel the reader to search for more?  Are you left wanting more (and is this a good thing)?  Is it effective?

So you’re sort of missing a conclusion, but you already know that… For your conclusion, I would make it very human focused, somewhat as a mirror on your introduction. Tie up the lose ends and make your you really make clear what this really is. Think big picture, worldly implications.

Voice and Audience

Characterize the story’s voice and tone?  Is it suitable for the topic?  Is it engaging?  Is it consistent throughout the piece?  If first person POV is used, is this effective or jarring (remember, most story’s should rely on the strength of the topic for engagement, not the evidence of authorial intrusion).

Informal tone which really works in this human paper. The writing was great and vey engaging. Its tone remained consistent and facts were easily integrated. I really liked the interview point of view. Expand that into the paper and conclusion more, please.

Try to characterize the audience.  What venue (publication) do you think this story suits?  Why?  Does the author effectively address this audience (too dumbed-down or sensational, too dry and esoteric)?

This belongs in a psychology research journal because I feel this topic is more common than one thinks and there isn’t much awareness about it. The audience is addressed well. Maybe add more fact and sciency stuff.

Mechanics

Mark any ineffective or over-used word/phrase choices.  Mark any repetitive sentence structures.  Offer advice on vocabulary, syntax, and sentence structure. Mark other grammar issues and typos.

None that I saw.

Sarah, really amazing and interesting paper! Thank you so much for letting me read it!

Scientific Feature Outline

Lead: Long analogy/metaphor on how plaque is a temporary town and how tarter is a city.
Section one: Cavities
Discuss what a cavity is and what causes it. Talk about why one may still have a cavity but it may not hurt and why it should be fixed. Talk about how germs are involved. Look into how diet may affect cavity formation- ie, why candy is bad for our teeth.
Section two: modern restoration
Discuss the current restoration options and how some options are more expensive and time consuming. Link smaller cavities with easier fixes and deeper cavities with more in depth treatments. Make this a story and explore sensations: hearing, smell, touch, sight (not many tastes).
Section three: History and future of dentistry
Convey an understanding about how rudimentary dentistry used to be. Make people cringe here. It used to be painful. Put a big emphasis on the discovery of anesthetics here. For the future of dentistry, look at a few new technologies and answer the "so what?" Why does all of this technology make dentistry more bearable.
Conclusion: Here I will sum up what was just talked about and tie up any loose ends I feel were left dangling. This is also the place that I will make a subtle plea for people to take better care of their teeth.

What's the drill?

The science feature I'm writing is all about teeth, dentistry, and just oral health in general. While I am writing to explain some scientific ideas in simple terms, I also hope to create an urgency to keep one's teeth clean and to see a dentist on a regular basis. I will keep the article informative with little to no bias and try to focus on fact more than anything else. While oral hygiene is a relatively broad topic, I hope to cover these areas:

What is a cavity and how does one form?
Why should a dentist be seen routinely?
How are cavities fixed?
What happens if a cavity is allowed to continue growing?
History of restorative dentistry.
Future of restorative dentistry.

Because dentistry is a topic which makes some people uncomfortable, I will be using informal language in order to convey ideas. I want it to feel like a small group conversation. The paper will have three distinct sections with a subtitles separating the flow of thought since the sections will be distinct.

Inequality quantified

When I opened this article, I had no intention to actually read it and discuss its role as a science feature. After all, this article is about the gender gap in the science field. Not too science-y, right? Well, this article discusses inequality of the genders in a social science perspective, making it a rather unique science feature article. Prom the second I opened it, the prickles caught me. The interactive graph with data comparing the number of males to females in a given science field over time. While the field of psychology was relatively balanced according to the data, I was surprised to find how lopsided fields such as engineering and computer science were. These prickles made me keep reading. The shocking statistics grabbed me like a good hook would in any English paper while the goo of the article worked on my emotions. The article systematically broke down the argument into sections to promote equality in the field.  Common thoughts were brought up to be related giving the article a human aspect. Like many science feature, subtitles are also used, organizing and focusing ideas to keep the readers interest. While this feature did a great job at pointing out an issue in social science and presented a good amount of data, the amount of goo became overwhelming at points. In the equal pay section, it sounded more like a diatribe or argument than a science feature presenting factual studies, which the feature uses earlier.

Antibiotic Resistance. What Worked?

Creeping into a world where these super bacteria are broadening their ground, this science feature feature. With well balanced prickles and goo, CREs, a rare but growing form of antibiotic resistant bacteria are discusses. The articles is well organized being separated into subtitles: introduction, the trend, the alarm call, the spread, etc. Each section covers the usually deadly form of bacteria in great detail while not loosing the readers attention due to the focus on the topic. The article utilizes plenty of prickles in the form of statistics and quotes from CDC research. None of this information is too overwhelming though, as it is written in simple English. In fact, the entire article is written in easy to understand language. All of the information can easily be related to daily life and the topic is of great human interest. The author also maintains attention through creating a sense of urgency at the very beginning. He states that this strain of bacteria is rare but expanding yet also usually deadly. This speaks right to the human interest of sustaining life. This bacteria has the potential for killing life along with any human element, thus speaking directly to us. While it is usually easy to be critical of any type of science feature, whether it be not accessible enough or too dry, I don't feel the need to pick anything out of this one. I feel it is highly accessible and informative. If anything, it is not technical enough, forcing me to understand how complex this topic really is.