Thanks to the COM352 students for contributing a bunch of new pages! I'll be moving these pages into the main area of the wiki soon.

From UMassWiki

The most effective way to critique this draft is, in my view, to compare it to the earlier version. What did I keep, what did I lose? How is this draft improved? Have I lost anything that I should rescue? How well did I incorporate or otherwise respond to your feedback?

Of course, I am also interested in your general responses and opinions.  :-) (Always!) steph (COM) 01:24, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Critique

Well I must admit that this draft is much more informative and easier to follow. Your comparisons and analogies are easier to digest, your concept of identity through analyzing Jack Stark's identity is clearly evident, and I believe the only things you threw away were the things that got a lot of us confused in the first place. The fitting analogy to the water stream that you kept was a good decision, as was the idea of using The Jacket to figure out your own identity. Bringing students' actual reactions into the mix as well as losing the poem (although it was a well-done poem) were also good choices in this context (from my point of view).

There was something that I didn't quite get, however, and this is the last four sentences. The way I see it, the point you're making is that people have to perfect a paper before it can be learned from and talked about- when I thought the process of learning was what a made a paper great. I thought the two went hand in hand, and perhaps they do, but this is the way I interpreted that message.

The only other thing I could say is that some of your heavy-duty listing seems a bit passive compared to the rest of the draft. "Despite memory loss...." this sentence, when I first read watered down the commanding, leading tone of the narrative. It was (in my opinion, of course), either weak word choice or weak word choice context. However, overall, the paper was much more enjoyable to read, I learned more about you than the last draft (much more), and it wasn't awkward at any point for the reader. It was engaging and flowing, and a much better read. Tom 17:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

More Critiquing

Steph, What I like most about this draft is that it is clear enough to understand after one reading. I like that you carried over the river/stream metaphor from the first paper-it is a great way to illustrate the identity of Jack Starks, an identity which many people strive to achieve. This paper shows us that you are one of those people who, wisely, admires Jack Stark's unmoving identity. The paper shows us that his identity is almost inhuman because it could take a lifetime to achieve for a non-fictional character.

This paper also has much more emphasis on you, whereas the other paper talked about students and Jack considerably more than it did yourself. Although it is not out of the question to define or talk about identity through others, it is not always as clear as using you own experiences. I am convinced that this is a good switch considering the clarity of this draft vs. the clarity of the first draft.

I would like to see an example of Stark's perseverance in the essay just to show a reader who has not seen the movie just how focused and clam Starks is. Other than that, the paper does a great job supporting your definition of identity. John? 09:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)