ENC1102-706F08

It kind of feels as if the paper ends rather abruptly. A conclusion that sort of sums the idea of the paper up might help buffer that. Also, there are a lot of grammatical errors throughout this paper that need to be gone back over- mainly missing commas here and there, and couple phrases that don't seem like the right words. Also, I didn't see any citations in the paper. You definitely need to go back through and add them into your paper.

any time you have a direct quote, you always need a comma before the quote starts, and then before the quote ends, unless it's the end of a sentence (in which case it needs the proper punctuation). words, "Senator Obama doesn't understand,"

You might want to double check the spelling. I'm pretty sure it's "Barack"

Yes, Dena is correct.

It almost feels as if this might need to be a new paragraph. It goes from discussing his verbal rhetoric to his visual rhetoric, so maybe you might want to add more about his spoken rhetoric than on his visual rhetoric before you jump into that. Or you might want to add more about Obama's verbal rhetoric and that might add some balance.

*Barack Obama's

This is a pretty long sentence. You could break the run on up into two sentences like this- "John McCain, on the other hand, did not have a solution. He just kept speaking about Barack Obama and what he does not understand or on how he wants to raise taxes, without explaining Obama's good reasons behind it." Something along those lines would probably make it flow a little better.

I'm not sure if I understand how his gesture is considered to be ethos. Maybe you could go further into explaining this.

Again, I think you should go further into explaining how this is ethos.

This is a good example.

You need to have a works cited and an annotated bibliography.

Okay, so for some reason, it's not showing my floating sticky notes of my three topics, so I'm going to put them in here. Assignment Parameters- I think you have a start to your main idea but didn't go on further with it. Like Dena said, it seems like your thesis is that "right now this country needs a collectivist mindset." You didn't go on to explain how Obama has a colectivist mindset. Also, this statement is a bit biased. I know that it is extremely hard to keep your opinion out of a paper like this, but you could try not to make it so harsh. You may be able to say, "Unlike McCain, Barack Obama has a more collectivist mindset." Your purpose is somewhat clear, but it seems to jump around a bit at times. Organization- I think this is the biggest thing you need to work on. I see part of an introduction in the paper, but not an official one separate from the rest of the paper. You could use "Upon completeing..." to "some ways" as your introduction and maybe add a little background of what rhetoric is or something along those lines. I also didn't see much of a closing in the paper, so maybe you could sum up the main ideas of your paper into a short closing to make it more organized.

Conventions-I noticed a few puncuation, spelling, and grammatical errors, so I would suggest just going back through and re-reading your paper to catch those particular errors. You need to use MLA format in the paper, including your header with your name. You also need to add in text citations.

This sentence kind of confuses me. It's how you start I think that is confusing, saying his logo represents.....try to reword it.

These sentences need to be conbined or changed they don't flow well together.

As far as style, just some run-on sentences. Cut out some commas and make some sentences a little simpler. It'll help your papers readibility.

you need to site your quotes in the text.

I like these paragraphs, well done. Good analysis and good use of quotes and direct examples to back your claims. Just some wording issues which is easy to fix.

I like the way you worked all these quotes in as support.

point of view mix up.

try to tie your thesis in a little more in closing. talk about the torture debate a little and how the authors use rhetoric.

i couldn't catch many grammar mistakes, just word usage and agreement. I'm not that grammar savy so go over it pretty good.

good point.

Convention- Incorrect spelling

Convention- wrongly capitalized

Convention- order would make more sense here

Convention- sentense doesn't make sense

Convention-sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- and/or

Convention- commas are needed around "although not acceptable in today's society"

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- should just be Levin

Convention- should be "and of making a choice"

Convention- Levin

Convention-Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- This is wrong. The mother said she would want to administer the torture not just watch.

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- doens't make sense

Convention- parts of sentence don't make sense, wrong tense used for reason

Convention- commas needed around "when needed", need to specify who has no knowledge

Convention- sentence changes tense

Convention- should be "and is considered Lincoln's"

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- This is wrong. Foner is just citing "sentiments that are likely to be with us for some time to come." The article is actually about how he thinks "the most patriotic act of all is the unyielding defense of civil liberties."

Convention- commas are also needed around the quote

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- the authors have a similar style of writing not the magazine

Convention- Levin

Convention- This is wrong. As I stated earlier Foner completely disagrees with these actions and McCullagh never even says that he agress with the actions taken by our government.

Convention- doesn't make sense

Organization- The closing doesn't really relate to the rest of the paper. Ethics is only mentioned one time before this.

Organization- There is no opening to the paper. You go right into discussing your first article instead of introducing your main idea.

Convention- Ursula

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Assignment Parameters- The paper does not really reflect the idea that was assigned. There is only one reference to rhetorical basis and style (pathos, logos, or ethos). You didn't always state whether the author was for or against torture. You also didn't really mention anything about the credentials or authority of any authors or sources so there was nothing about how this affects the success of the message. You also did not research any additional articles on torture so there was obviously no discussion about their specific claims or how they use situation and fact.

Organization- There are a lot of good details used in the paragraphs about LeGuin's story but many of the things talked about do not relate to the topic. The first two paragraphs are good discussion on the story but don't relate to the subject of torture and there is no mention about how this author uses rhetorical strategies.

You use a lot of good details and quotes throughout the paper but the fact that you have incorrect references and have the whole idea of Foner's article wrong might make your paper look unreliable.

The paper doesn't tie together very well. For one of the authors you talked about rhetoric, for one you talked about different aspects of the plot and for some you gave too much review of the information in the article and not enough about the message they were trying to portray and the writing style they used to get it across to the readers.

The paragraphs about Levin are good. You use details that help develop your ideas and also state what kind of rhetoric style he uses to persuade his readers.

The paragraphs about McCullagh have too much review and not enough of your ideas on his writing style, message or credentials.

The paragraph about Foner's article is really confusing to me. Not only are your references not accurate with his article but I don't understand that sentence about how he claims "his views on terrorism by bringing people right of speech"?

Your bibliography page is also supposed to be in MLA format, not just the link to the website.

good point

fragment

omit

omit

paper is good, just try to get out of using 1st person so often, if at all

omit

omit

structure

Overall, paper has good content and organization. All the references were used correctly and good points were made. The only things to work on are getting the paper out of 1st person, and using stronger transitions.

This should be "connected," not "connect."

I believe that there should be a comma in between the word "said" and "All" before your quote. Also, Foner's name at the end of the quote should be capitalized.

I think this is a very good point. It seems like you really took a lot of time to analyze the works. Good job!

The word "is" should be "if."

I like the way this was said. It's very true!

I like your introduction. It's good that you explained what rhetoric was and how it's used because when writing pubilcly, all readers may not know exactly what you're talking about.

I like that you used the word "tackles" instead of some other not-so-exciting verbs.

Conventions-I didn't mean to pick on your grammer and puncuation, but that was all I could really pick on! The rest of your paper, I thought, was very good. Most of the stuff I could critique involved small grammatical errors, (which everyone makes), especially on papers.

Oh, also, in the Conventions area, your references were correct. You used the correct format and used in-text citations, so there is definitely no plagiarism is present.

Assignment Parameters-I thought you did a VERY good job with keeping on topic. You explained everything that you needed to explain to the reader including if the author's credentials effected their work, what rhetoric they used, etc. It was easy to understand exactly what you were saying.

This is a very good analysis.

Style-You chose good words to use, making the paper not boring. You switched some of the verbs and descriptions you used, which is very important, especially in a long paper. Your sentences varied with construction, which is also a good thing. You kept your opinion out of the paper and kept the point of view as being non-biased.

Overall I thought your paper was very good. I can tell you really took time to analyze the works, figure out what the author was attempting to say, and answer all the questions that were assigned.

It won't let me highlight another section that was already highlighted, but I really liked that you used "tugging heartstrings" to describe the use of pathos.

comma

stifles

you may have to site this.

You need a tab here if it's a new paragraph. =)

I don't know if you're using MLA format or not- but you might need to site this at the end of the quote.

what's the source on this?

Can you think of any other way to word that? I know that's his title, but that seems really awkward reading it.

comma after *that*

need an apostrophe unless you're talking about more than one McCullagh.

you need a comma after the year.

Really good work overall, your biggest problem seemed to be grammatical errors which are the easiet to make. I don't know what sort of formatting you are using, which makes it hard to judge on what you should and should not site- but other than that I think it's a really good paper. Also- if you have your works cited page ready, that would be good to post sometime soon. Depending on what format style you used, mistakes are easily made with that as well. (p.s.- sorry it's so late, these last couple of weeks have been really hectic for me and I'm trying to get caught back up in all my classes! =/ my bad!)

also, after reading over it once again, the last half of the paper seems a little less organized than the first half. The first part flows very well, but the last couple of paragraphs seems to jump ideas a little bit. You might try rewording the first sentences of the paragraphs and that should help it.

you might wanna site where you found out its his dissertation. I don't think I remember reading that in the article.

I like how you positioned these two paragraphs together since they were similar articles. I felt both had a lot of similar content and made it flow very nicely.

I think this statement should probably go somewhere closer to the beginning. By now after reading the paragraph, it already seems a little bit of a given.

You might wanna clarify on who wrote about these subjects since you throw four names out there, and you almost always want to write as if your audience has no idea who wrote what.

I wanna say this should be italicized, but I'm not entirely sure. I know something should be done to distinguish it- but I am not entirely sure what.

You can use this when you revise your paper. You could briefly talk about what torture is, then go on to explain what rhetoric is.

This seems like it's your opinion. The assignment says to try to keep our opinions separate from the paper.

Assignment Parameters-Your paper definitely maintains a main idea, but it is not the idea that the assignment was intended to create.

Style-Your sentence structure varies and I understand what points you are trying to get across, but once again, they are not the points that need to be made in this particular paper. Your point of view, for the most part, is appropriate because you are stating facts, but as far as your opinion, you need to try to keep your opinion out of the paper completely, even though that is sometimes very hard to do.

Development-Your details do develop your main idea, but once again, your main idea wasn't what was assigned for this paper. The paper was mostly supposd to be about rhetoric and its effects on particular pieces of work. I can tell you took time to work on your paper, and if it followed the directions, I think it would be a pretty good paper, but as far as following directions, you did not. I would suggest you go back and look through the directions for the assignment again.

Look at the different types of torture. It is not mainly mental, there are a lot of physical types of torture, too.

Look at the way these sentences are worded. A few of the don't make sense and they are choppy. Just try to reword these sentences and word them a little better.

Pay attention to your grammer, copy it to a word document to spell check it before the final draft.

Be srue to analyze the authors use of rhetoric in each article.

overuse of phrase

ignore this comment... i dont know why it was put here!

over use of the phrase

unnecessary

unnecessary

historian, he was

This whole sentence is confusing to me!

Could just start the sentrence with "Both of them"

Why is one capitalized and the other is not?

These few short sentences on publication are great, however I don't feel you provide enough evidence.

No transitional phrases!

This paragraph, although informational and very persuasive, does not represent the rhetorical issues the paper is supposed to deal with. I think the paper was supposed to be about how the authors used rhetoric and style to write their journals, not actually about torture.

WHAT?!?!?!

Good transition

author" (Ramage and Bean 1).

America, and

Maybe can add: and how they have evolved into what they are today.

progress" (Foner 1).

life; but we all collectively have not.

You maybe are missing a couple of words here?? This doesn't make sense because you have not conveyed your full thought it seems.

is without a doubt, an...

Try not to start off this sentence the same as you did the previous one. Rearrange this sentence or possibly combine the two into something like... He has succeeded in numerous accomplishments and has been honored....