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.