Post a link to your paper and commence in peer review. Each student will be evaluated in terms of his or her contribution to peer review. Collectively, the group will be evaluated on two criteria:
A. the quality of the titles and abstracts submitted: 1st place 5 points; 2nd place 4 points; 3rd place 3 points; 4th place 2 points; 5th place 1 point
B. the quality of the peer reviews completed: 1st place 15 points; 2nd place 10 points; 3rd place 8 points; 4th place 4 points; 5th place 2 points
How to post a link to your paper.
1. Log into your Google account or another account that allows for cloud storage.
2. Click on Drive. (It should be in a menu near the top left corner)
3. Click on New / File Upload
4. Pick your ethnography paper and upload it
5. click share
6. click advanced
7. click 'change'
8. move it to 'anyone with link'
9. click save
10. copy the URL and paste it to this board
Above your link, you are to give your paper a title and create an abstract. Following the abstract, you should detail some of your concerns with your paper as it currently stands. Give plenty of details so as to help your group do a better job with your review. Make sure your abstract is distinctly separated from your concerns.
There is a peer review sheet available to help you review the work of your peers, but you don't have to use this peer review handout. This peer review will count for more than 20% of your overall participation grade for the course, so this is a great opportunity to shine at the end. To put it into context: as of now, there are 135 points currently available for participation. This assignment is worth 40 participation points. I am going to carefully read all of the feedback in this forum to evaluate the quality of the peer review. The team that scores the highest average will earn 1st place, second highest will get second place, and so on.
The best feedback will be specific and will be tailored to help the writer improve his or her draft.
May the best team win.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbstract~ Fandoms and Friendship
ReplyDeleteFor this paper I studied discourse within the TMNT (Ninja Turtle) fandom of the DeviantArt community, a website dedicated to sharing art of all forms be it traditional, digital, or linguistic. The reason for this study was due to recent media outbreaks on internal wars within fandoms (one of which included a DeviantArtist from the “Steven Universe” fandom who nearly committed suicide due to bullying). I analyzed a total of 33 comments from six different submissions within the community half from art submissions and half of them from fan-fiction (or literary) submissions. Amazingly enough, out of all 33 comments only one of the comments turned out to be what one may consider a “hate” comment, or a negative comment about the fan-fiction, that started a fight between the commenter and a few others. I found that the majority of the comments were short and sweet and complimented the artist and their work. Even though only one comment was a “hate” comment it spread an interesting light upon the discourse within the fandom.
I'm bit worried that my paper is too long and I still have a few adjustments I know I have to make. However for things like the deviantart pictures I'm not sure if i should only cite the website when I do my works cited page and I'm also a bit worried if I stray from the topic, I tend to have a hard time keeping my thoughts focused.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6PD1WWIEX7OSFFjcHBCSHAxNGs&usp=sharing
Peer Review
Deletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3MhtVyu8v98VTkwWDBPNW1FaEE/view?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LK9FYOKiKJiNE7W7UooO3E8MR_WselLkrDakNkPOxAo/edit
Deletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZN9PzEZ88VNprRPq2CxXffc-yOK3IPShEabr722GJnY/edit?usp=sharing
DeleteThere wasn't really any errors that I could find. It is a wonderful piece. I can understand how you did your research and how you got your conclusion. I think it would be a cool to add in some pictures like Marius did in his. Over all It was awesome you described the argument very well.
Abstract: Star Trek and the top five Reddit Post
ReplyDeleteI did this paper on the Star Trek Online Reddit's top five post and what their common theme was. I found this really interesting because I wanted play the game and the quickest way to get information on what is going on in the Star Trek Online universe is the Reddit page. I found that what rules the top five post depends on what events are going on and were or not the post is relevant to these events.
I find that my paper is lacking in a higher vocabulary. It seems very short to me and I can't tell if i stayed on topic or not.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzCztVCxyIsAWDhnNmM2MEdfeXc/view?usp=sharing
Writer: Emily Lyn
DeleteTopic: Star Trek Online
Critic: Melanie Servidio
Critique:
This paper does an excellent job of explaining what everything is, from the Star Trek fans in general to Star Trek Online to Star Trek Reddit. It uses and explains several words that are prominent within the fandom alone (showing its discourse) such as Tribble and Klingon. However, there is an excess amount of explaining and an under amount of research for a research paper. There does seem to be a general direction to where the research was going and that research had taken place however I’m unsure what the research was about. Was it over the general discourse? Simply to see how people interacted? I’m also unclear on what the Top Five Post is. Is it by the top five people? Or voted the top five?
The vocabulary used is relevant to the discourse and hence it seems good for college level to me. However the constant explaining of vocabulary every few sentences had my head in quite a spin. It didn’t flow very easily although everything was on topic it wasn’t very focused.
I’m also a bit confused on any discourse that took place within the research. Where they all just pictures? Was there any commentary that occurred amongst the top five posts? Those would make excellent examples to bring into your research to back up your statements and add to your research paper. This would bring the focus of the paper from being explanatory to being research.
I do believe the paper is of good length, it just needs a bit more research, and a bit less explaining. Everything seems separated well. It would also be nice if you used some topics similar to the research to help analyze it.
I think your paper is at a good starting point. You develop some great ideas but like Melanie said, I think it needs a bit more research because a majority of it seems like you are explaining things. Here is the link to the comments I made on your paper. Don't be scared, a lot of them are just tweaking grammar and adding a word or two!!
Deletehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1lYSCabSDp9VDB9610myg7ba5PQfIQqYemefibD_j0fI
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3MhtVyu8v98ZEVZM0hLSEZaUGM/view?usp=sharing
Deletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1LK9FYOKiKJiNE7W7UooO3E8MR_WselLkrDakNkPOxAo/edit
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_aBDBeY6y4yVWY0ajAwQUtkQ1k/view?usp=sharing
ReplyDeleteWriter: Marius Loots
DeleteTopic: Terminal Lance Community
Critic: Melanie Servidio
Critique:
To start off there is certainly a passion you feel for this community, which extends through your writing making it an excellent read (such as when you stated “You must show the same level of sacrifice and willingness to be in the same miserable places they are…”). When a person makes a connection with what they are writing about, the writing flows well and it is relatively easy to keep the attention of your audience even when they themselves have no connection with the material. That shines through relatively well in your piece.
There are some excellent examples of the community discourse in your paper such as “he rates” and “salty.” There is also plenty of college level vocabulary within your paper as well including “chevron” and “apathetic dispositions.”
Your paper does a good job of analyzing the discourse of this community and including comic strips is an excellent decision. It provides examples of the discourse as well as visuals of the comic strip, which is great for getting your point across.
Ultimately this is an excellent paper. It works to a point, as being a community that is “the first community that maturely conveys their frustrations to the general public without any direct altercation.” It flows really well and is a great read, mixing both the gritty reality as well as the comedic side of this community and it can just as easily be seen in a real research paper. That being said I’m not sure how you could make this paper better, though I would thoroughly enjoy some more comic strips and analyzing their discourse.
Here is the link to my peer review on Google Docs.
Deletehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1aVQ6HAhHnyM2poaTWh-bAxFstuvSlD1bp38gHvJ6ulg
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3MhtVyu8v98dm9yM3N4YjdPZmc/view?usp=sharing
Deletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1f9arqlDQ3UGkKpekEruCsel4HlIRTFM1jxl-t5gKx6A/edit?usp=sharing
DeleteHere are some edits. I thought it was a great paper. I don't really have any suggestions on making it better other than if you are going to indent one paragraph please indent the rest. The pictures/comics were a great idea and are placed perfectly in the flow of your essay and enhance it.Also, how did you do research?
Yelp Ranks: The Badge of Shame or the Badge of Fame?
ReplyDeleteAbstract
“Foodie” is a term that has emerged recently and is commonly associated with the website, Yelp.com. A “foodie” is someone who has a refined interest in food and drink. Most of the top reviewers on Yelp have adopted this identity. Yelpers gain higher social standing within the community by “checking in” at the places they dine and posting valuable reviews. The more active an account is, the higher the badge it receives. Badges range from Rookie to Yelpus Maximus. This study aims to further understand the factors that contribute to a user’s authority and how reviews fluctuate between users of different ranks.
Concerns:
- I still need to add one or two more sentences at the end of my conclusion to tie it all together but I was stumped.
- I want to research some rhetorical theories about authority to possibly add to my paper.
- For my works cited, do I need to post the link to the Yelp accounts that I studied to give them credit for all their information?
- I feel some phrases in my paper were overused so maybe you guys can come up with ways to reword phrases such as, "users" "Yelpers" "higher ranking members" "gaining higher authority" "earning more badges" and the like..
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8cAURbAr5CIcVVLSVl0NEw5d2M/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8cAURbAr5CIWmtGRElxeVdNSG8/view?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FUNgJ5ffJVqZCX8E6Kk4EnRLvg7mrLvjfdJE8gd-9GM/edit?usp=sharing
DeleteThere wasn't really anything I could really say to make it better except finish the last paragraph. Over all it was great. It was a very interesting and clear. I could easily understand your method of research. Your paper flowed very well.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LK9FYOKiKJiNE7W7UooO3E8MR_WselLkrDakNkPOxAo/edit
Deletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3MhtVyu8v98ZkZKZFhiRGpoZms/view?usp=sharing
DeleteCommunication on /a/
ReplyDeleteAbstract
The purpose of this research paper is to introduce the online discourse community known as /a/, as well as provide a detailed analysis as to how this community interacts. Through this paper, I attempt to explain how this community uses the tools and resources given to them to interact, and how this creates a unique community that differs from most.
Concerns
• Did I describe terminology and phrases in enough detail?
• Did I discuss unimportant topics in too much detail?
•Does this paper follow the correct direction?
•Describe how anonymity sets this community apart
•How anonymity leads to a more open platform for discussion,
•Do I explain enough about Reddit?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-oy8ZMlAa3gGJOy4LC5djr3-QW61LHqGf860OIntFIw/edit?usp=sharing
Writer: Bennett Thompson
DeleteTopic: 4Chan
Critic: Melanie Servidio
Critique:
Your paper gets right to the point and does an excellent job of putting forth the direction of the paper right away. At first I was surprised by a lack of description of the website but then I realized they were in different sections with plenty of expansion. It does an excellent job of describe community discourse specific vocabulary.
Some of your titles are rather amusing as they seem to be phrases that are recurring on the site. The analysis of hive mind mentality as well as the analysis of anonymity are great inclusions of the paper and help analyze it in depth further. I like that there’s something that seems to change the anonymity (trip codes) however I’m a bit unsure how they come about, how they’re used, and for what reasons would someone use trip codes on a thread. I do believe you described most everything enough except I would like some expansion on these trip codes as they seem to go against what anonymity stands for.
Overall you create some good points about anonymity in /a/. Before reading this, I had no clue about online communities like this one and by the end of your paper I was able to understand the purpose of /a/. In response to your concerns:
Delete• You do a good job of describing key terms and the overall concept of the community.
• I think if add information about Reddit in your introduction and try to incorporate it throughout the paper more, you will be good.
• The paper flows well, you frame a concept (anonymity in /a/) and stick to it throughout your paper.
You explained Reddit well but I think by making this a research paper comparing identity in Reddit vs. 4chan, (as opposed to focusing on 4chan and slightly mentioning Reddit) you will develop a stronger argument.
Here is the link to revisions on Google Docs:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PE9156OjpuNWQPRotzBoE-B_vaCHcoYuCllbCl280gc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17AWTd8zbZWFFAC7_nldvpPBWUbR-BZ27IAiGwkwkRkY/edit
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbstract:
ReplyDelete(Sorry it's late guys) My paper is about the Terminal Lance community, which is a social group for lowly Infantry Marines that started as an online comic strip and grew into the website www.terminallance.com and of course a Facebook page. There are many unique aspects of the community, from the lingo, to the pride in being a member, to the "gang sign" associated with it, so I spent a lot of time trying to figure how to organize the paper, any suggestions there are welcomed. I was also concerned with the research question itself; was it clear, did i address it enough? I am trying to explore how the culture uses humor and still has a sense of responsibility for current events and social issues... i think.. It's still in the works as is the title and other parts of the paper