I reviewed Missy Webb's essay on its content/form
One major thing that I would recommend Missy change is to explicitly state what her stance on her argument is in her introduction paper. This would help let the reader know what the paper they are reading is about as well as provide focus to the paper. Another thing about the intro is that there are a lot of rhetorical questions. I liked the usage of them but there seems to be a lot. Perhaps removing some of the rhetorical questions so that they aren't so many could be a good idea.
When citing Twitter, I feel as though saying (@ name on Twitter) is not a very good way to go about it. I would recommend just citing it how you normally would with just the Tweeter's (?) last name, because the work cited is what lets people know where the source is coming from. Furthermore, I noticed there really wasn't a lot of sources used causing reliance on the same sources. While this may not necessarily be a bad thing, I don't think you are supposed to constantly cite the same source a bunch of times in a row as you did in your second paragraph with (Smith). The low amount of sources and 3 of them being from twitter also lowers credibility a bit when a reader sees your sources.
I did like how you made us of first person which I felt helped with appealing to pathos.
No comments:
Post a Comment