context paper
- How do you feel this paper turned out? I feel it turned out pretty good. I want to get further into it, but time is not on my side this semester.
- Did you accomplish what you set out to do in the description of the context? I feel I did. I wanted to really tackel all the big issues surrounding Sex and The city and I think I covered all the issues out there.
- Do you feel like there is something that you should have included or described in more detail? I feel I covered all the issues, but I could always describe more.
- What are the three biggest strengths of this essay? I went into depth, I was organized, and I worked hard on it.
- What do you think are two of its weaknesses? It could always be more in depth and more organized
- What would you like your reviewers to focus on? I would like them to continue to give the great and detailed feedback. They have been a great support team with great ideas. thanks ladies:)
posted by dawnemry @ 12:23 AM
2 Comments:
1. Does the author provide interesting and relevant background information? What information did you find to be the most interesting? The most important?
You did provide interesting and relevant background information. I liked the background into how MIT has a class for Sex and the City the most.
2. Is there sufficient background information for the rhetoric? What can the author do to improve the background they have provided? What other information that you would like to see included?
I think there could be more information for the rhetoric. To improve the background provided, I thin you need to connect more about why this background information is important in where you are going with your paper.
3. Does the author clearly lay out the social conditions that created the rhetorical situation? Is there enough specific information to understand why the rhetoric was created or what it was in response to? What can the author do to improve this section?
The social conditions are not clearly laid out, although they are mentioned. Maybe they just need to be enhanced. There is specific information, although there is no connection to why it is relevant, and to improve this could improve this section.
4. What is the rhetorical problem facing the rhetor? Does the author lay this out clearly? Does it resonate with what you perceive to be the rhetorical problem?
The rhetorical problem facing the rhetor is not clearly laid out, although mentioned. There are many issues surrounding this paper, although these issues are not put into context of the paper. I think that these issues revolving around this show that you mentioned are definitely part of the rhetorical problem. Just some easily added connections could help that along.
5. Do you feel that the author is sufficiently expert on the rhetoric? What things do the author fail to examine? What suggestions do you have to round out the information that the author has included about the rhetoric?
The author failed to examine why this was written from the context. Such as, why would an audience care to watch Sex and the City under the social conditions in our context now. Some suggestions is just to make those connections. Otherwise, I think that you did a good job. I could definitely see how you knew a lot about the show and the issues that surround it.
6. Overall, what is your sense of the context of the artifact? What can the author do to fill in any holes that you might have noticed? What should be more should be included? What did you find irrelevant?
Overall my sense of the context of the artifact is that Sex and the City was a really big deal to a lot of people. I think you can maybe add in why this show became such a cult craze, such as women could connect with it, because a lot of women are facing some of these same problems. I don’t know if the issues for the context paper are as relevant as they were in the artifact paper, although they are still important when talking about how these issues were relevant in their context, as in with women today.
7. Are sources cited appropriately? Are there a good number of sources? Are they from diverse source types? What can you suggest to the author about the research they have conducted thus far?
As far as I can tell your sources are cited appropriately, except for those that you could not find. There are a good number of sources, definitely. Yes, they are from diverse source types. Maybe look at feminist articles about this, and then compare it with articles that are crazy about it.
8. How is the writing? What can the author do to improve? What other suggestions or observations do you have?
The writing is good, very conversational, draws you into wanting to find out more. Maybe because this is a scholarly paper that shouldn’t be as evident, although it does make me want to read more.
Dawn- I put your coments on Cara's page by accident- sorry!- So I guess I am going to have to do the same on yours....sorry
1. Cara- You provided Asignificant amount of detail to your paper.. I really like the little story of how it came about. It was very interesting and relevant as well.
2. Yes- alot of back round info about how and why there is a show about women who feel the overwhellming stress of marriage and career.
3. Yes- the sub title of 'social conditions' does indicate what was happening at the time of creation and a liitle bit about the pressure of reinstating the roles of a tradditional wife to the 21st century. Good job.
4. You did a great job on touching on the typical stereotypes that face these suburban housewives, but maybe a a littel bit more info could be mentioned about the mainproblem was about the show upon todays society.
5. No real suggestions needed. You did your researchit seems like and know what to talk about.
6. Overall I really liked your paper. It seems like you know what your talking about and the paper is really interesting as well.
7. Sources are cited properly, although I think you forgot to give me a bibliography page. I like you integration of the quotes as well.
8. Our writing styles are different, however I really do liek this paper and it, to me is even better than the first one. Great job.
Post a Comment
<< Home