The process of receiving, reviewing, and implementing feedback from peer reviews is one of the most efficient tools that could be used to improve a piece of scholarly or academic writing. In this paper, I will analyze the feedback provided by my peers and my instructor with a scope of mapping out the next steps towards improving my capstone paper.
The Introduction
Peer review no. 3 found that the question topic is clearly set within the larger policy and practice concept. The subject of my capstone research is Media Violence. My paper investigates the history of media violence, controversies regarding the subject, effectiveness of media laws and addressing media violence from medical and educational points of view. These parts of my introduction section are strong and well-defined. However, both the instructor and the peer reviewer have noted certain issues with my thesis statement. I will need to correct the formatting for it and remove the separate subheading, as it is unnecessary. The thesis statement is supposed to be at the end of introduction section. Although the peer reviewer voiced a suggestion to reword the thesis statement and make it shorter, I do not agree with that suggestion. There is nothing wrong with a longer thesis statement, so long as it fits into one sentence without artificially stretching it out. However, I will include citations in my thesis statement to support the claims made in it.
The Main Body
Each section of the main body of the text clearly represents my key points, with the subheading title announcing its general theme, and the following text providing ample information about the subject. Although it was not mentioned neither by my peer reviewer or my instructor, I believe that adding a thematic statement at the beginning of every part of the main body of the text would help clarify my points even more.
Although I have a sufficient number of scholarly sources to support my claims and main points presented in this paper, I do not use them sufficiently and systematically enough. Both my peer reviewer and my instructor remarked on the lack of citations in statements that should be backed by evidence. It is a weakness of my paper and something I should work on to improve. References that I did make, however, are all accurately cited in accordance with APA manual of style.
Upon reviewing my paper, I noticed that although I use plenty of paraphrased information, I never included any direct quotations. Adding one or two in places where I make a crucial argument might be a good idea, as it will allow me to further emphasize the point. The use of direct quotations can also be used to attract the reader’s attention to the most important parts of the text and help express the opinions that other researchers have on the subject of Media Violence. However, I must make sure not to overuse direct quotations, as the purpose of this paper is to form a unique perspective backed by empirical evidence rather than produce a literature review of all available sources.
The Conclusion
The conclusion section is fairly solid. It brings the main points that were made in my paper together, reflects on the thesis statement made at the beginning of the paper, and states my conclusion clearly and concisely. However, there are still certain aspects that could be improved. Since this is the conclusion section, it should not operate with any facts or statements that were not already mentioned in the main body of the text. It must not introduce any new information. As my instructor clearly pointed out, some core statements of my conclusion section were not mentioned anywhere in the body of the text and were not backed by empirical evidence. To fix this, these statements should either be removed from the conclusion section, or elaborated on in the main body, with proper citations and quotations to support them. The structure of the conclusion section could also be slightly adjusted, with the summary of points made in this paper going before the overall conclusions, and not after them. It should improve the flow of the text.
Writing Style, Formatting Style, Grammar, and Punctuation
As this paper is a rough draft, certain issues with the writing style, grammar, and punctuation were expected. I managed to avoid making any major spelling or grammar mistakes. Despite that, the peer reviewer reflected on missing the article “the” every now and then, or including it in places where it was not solicited. The peer reviewer also mentioned several problems with the flow of the text, such as using the word “such” over 17 times throughout the paper, often repeating it several times in one paragraph. I will need to revise the paper and replace the repetitive words with their synonyms. The writing style was deemed solid, with proper use of vocabulary to prevent the text from being too wordy or too casual. Punctuation and formatting style seem alright, as neither the peer reviewer nor the instructor mentioned it in their commentary. The reference section is formatted according to the APA manual of style.