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.