Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1 of 212next »

1. The introduction is extremely well done. The layout of the information is very logical and keeps the reader's attention.

2. The organization of the page is great! The pictures really help to separate the tools.

3. You did a good job highlighting the differences and benefits of each tool. I was somewhat confused what you were talking about in the "Speed of Process" criteria.

4. The conclusion is very straightforward, but it might be good to at least mention the other tools besides Flickr.

5. I did not find any problems with the grammar.

6. The screen shots of the logos were a great idea and provide for good pathos, but they take away the ability of the reader to follow a link to the site. Ethos is shown through the authors' professional way of discussing the tools. The article appeals to logos, because all of the observations about the sites and the final conclusion are supported by logical facts about the tools.

Commented on by Megancm by megancmmegancm, 21 Feb 2010 07:22

1. The introduction is very well organized, splitting the paragraphs up by the subject is a good idea. However, I would not say "in this project" (beginning of the second paragraph). The last paragraph says seems to be missing a verb ("This because sometimes").

2. The organization and screenshots of the tools bars are all good.

3. Each category has good comments and highlights the differences between each tool.

4. The conclusion is well written; however, you only mention one of the tools by name. I did like how you said what exact thing Diigo is helpful for though.

5. I could not find any problems with the grammar.

6. Logos is clear throughout the article by the logical format and explanation of all the tools. Ethos is shown by the lack of errors in the article and by the confidence displayed through the discussion of the tools. And finally, pathos is demonstrated by the toolbar screen shots.

Commented on by Megancm by megancmmegancm, 21 Feb 2010 06:31

1. The introduction is simple and just describes one use of the tool. I feel that you should explain other uses. I also feel that there was not a smooth transition into why you chose each tool.

2. The organization was good, but I think it is clear that you need to add the screenshots.

3. The criteria were good. I really liked the useful features component, because I feel like that allows the reader to think about what they might use one tool for versus another.

4. The conclusion was definitely the weakest part of the page. I feel that you should talk more about each site and how you came to your conclusions.

5. The grammar could use a little improvement. For instance,"Moving things around was simple enough, you can just click on the bubble and move it and the saving and exporting options were simple to understand and use." might need to be two sentences. There are several other similar errors.

6. I feel that we all appeal to ethos in the same way, that we are all students who simply use these tools and aren't professionals. There were no obvious flaws that would cause the reader to think poorly of the authors. Pathos is shown through the authors' good organization. Logos is very strong in this article. There are many good points made about each tool that would lead the reader to be able to make decisions about which mind mapping tool to use.

Commented on by Megancm by megancmmegancm, 21 Feb 2010 05:49

I posted my comments within the text of your article, using bold tags. You can remove my comments as you work on revising the article.

Amy's comments by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 21:08

You can remove the header in the upper left corner since you don't need that on the published article.

Your intro makes it clear why students might want to use an online learning aid for Spanish. Capitalize Spanish in the third and last sentences.

Maybe work with your formatting a bit so that the elements under Criteria are smaller (right now they almost look like new sections rather than subsections; maybe just use bold for each of them rather than a plus tag and don't skip a line between the subheader and the paragraph).

Change the header for Easy of Use to Ease of Use.

Use a colon rather than a semicolon after two components (and remove the comma after navigate).

Maybe change Peoples learning to User's learning? People's needs an apostrophe but sounds a bit odd. Or maybe revise the whole sentence. For example: Users will not learn as much if they experience trouble navigating the web site. (Use your own words)

Remove the quotation marks around Effectiveness in that paragraph because you don't put quotation marks around the names of other criteria. Capitalize Spanish.

The last sentence under Starting Level is incomplete.

Maybe put Livemocha in ALL CAPS to make it stand out as your first tool? You could also make the title a hyperlink instead of including the URL in the paragraph. (If you leave it in the paragraph, put a comma after it since you have one before located).

Change the your in "once your logged in" to you're (for you are)

Under effectiveness, change references to "I" to "we" since you co-wrote the article.

Maybe start a new paragraph for the section on interacting with other users? And maybe also for specialized lessons? This paragraph has a bit too much going on it to count as a focused body paragraph. Also, the sentence starting Such as directions is incomplete.

Your discussion of LiveMocha is pretty thorough, but the other two sections look like they're not yet finished. Keep this principle of paragraph structure in mind: one paragraph per point.

Your conclusion is on the right track in emphasizing which tool you'd recommend and why.

Amy's comments by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 21:02

The fact that digital cameras are becoming widespread is a reason why anyone might need to be able to edit photos. But why might college students in particular have this need? What kind of projects or assignments do students need to include photos in? Do a bit more to make it clear how you're targeting college students as your audience and not just anyone who wants to edit photos, if you see what I mean. Maybe come up with a sample scenario where students are in need of editing photos for a specific project.

You might also clarify if you're offering these as alternatives to programs students might already know how to use but can't afford, like Photoshop. Or as more flexible versions of programs they may have for free, like iPhoto.

Your body paragraphs are a bit short. I wonder if maybe you didn't have enough material to work with by just using the red-eye removal test? Something more likely to apply to how college students would use this tool is cropping images to focus only on specific parts of them and/or resizing them to be appropriate for use in PowerPoint or other programs, so you could possibly include that as part of your test process as well. (Consider that cropping and resizing were the main things everyone in the class needed to be able to do with their screenshots for the instructions project and for this project, so that's a common need in college projects.)

Maybe say a bit more about what you mean when you say LunaPic is fairly easy to use. Compared to what? Also note that you actually go on to describe how it's sort of hard to use.

Consider being a bit more specific about the tools available in each program so that readers get a sense for what each program can do.

How do the tools compare with regard to the ease of importing and exporting common image file formats?

If you discuss a scenario in the intro in which students might need an image editor to crop and resize images, then maybe include a section for that criteria under each tool. Say something about how useful the tool would be to someone whose primary goal for using it is to crop and resize photos.

Doing the red eye test doesn't seem to have given you enough information to really develop your article, so that's why I'm suggesting you focus on additional tasks college students might want to do.

Some screenshots would be useful to illustrate things like the toolbar on each program and perhaps the settings for resizing or what the crop tool looks like.

Your conclusion is on the right track in recommending Pixlr, but the body of the analysis needs to do a bit more to support that recommendation by giving evidence that shows what it can do that the other two can't.

Comments by Amy by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 20:48

You might emphasize in the first paragraph that another benefit is how easy it is for students to share notes with each other. I see you mention that in the third paragraph, but it seems more relevant to the first. For the third paragraph, maybe tell us more about your actual test process. What steps did you follow as you tested each program? (What kind of notes did you attempt to create and share and for what purpose?)

Skip a line between paragraphs.

Your four criteria seem appropriate to the tools.

Under EverNote/Aesthetical Appeal, change "I was" to "we were" since this is a jointly written document.

Before you discuss site navigation, I wonder if you should describe the process of creating a new set of notes (or notebook) so readers get a feel for how the site works? Or maybe just reorganize how you present material under the navigation section. You start by assuming that readers have already created notebooks, if you see what I mean.

The screenshots are useful in showing readers how a note-taking site works, since it might not be clear otherwise.

Maybe explain that the tags make it easy to search all your notes for entries based on keywords. (That's certainly an advantage over having to flip through pages and pages of a spiral notebook to find a particular bit of info!)

Under Sharing, maybe indicate whether other people who view your notebook need to have accounts on the Evernote site. Maybe include a screenshot of what a shared notebook would look like (if it's different from the interface shown above).

Punctuation under aesthetic appeal of Luminotes: … happy users; however, the…

Change "me" to "us" and "I" to "we" under Site Navigation. Remember: you supposedly co-wrote this article (rather than each writing a separate section).

You mention that Luminotes has a linking feature under the Editing Tools section. I wonder it if might be worthwhile to have a new section for each tool that covers something like Additional Features, where you could highlight things like that (unless this is the only tool that has an additional feature worth mentioning).

Actually, having a section on Search Features might be good because that's something students might care about if they're going to create a large online note-sharing notebook.

Your sharing screenshot for Luminotes could be quite a bit smaller.

I assume you'll add a few screenshots to illustrate your points under ZohoNotes?

Maybe change "stuff" under ZohoNotes/Sharing to something like "notes" ("stuff" is a little too vague and informal). Also change the comma to a semicolon after unclear. Maybe experiment with sharing your test notes as a book, paper, and image so you can say a bit more about what those export or sharing options mean?

In the conclusion, change "feasible" to something like "useful." Drop the apostrophe in it's (it's means it is). Include a comma between people and proved.

Your reasons for recommending Evernote are clear.

I wonder if you might say a bit more about how college students might use a tool like this because that still isn't quite clear. Maybe give a few brief examples in the intro? Something like how the tool could be used for a group project or for class study notes or something like that. Then maybe come back to those examples in the conclusion and note that Evernote would be particularly useful for accomplishing those tasks. Is there a task for which Luminotes might be better suited? (the answer may be no, but it's worth considering)

Amy's comments by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 20:24

The word "sources" doesn't quite work in the opening sentence. Maybe: We will focus on making graphs using online tools.

Punctuation in second sentence: … graphs; however, not…

Change the semicolon in the third sentence to a comma (after cut costs).

You're on the right track by emphasizing the free nature of these tools but might go a bit overboard with it!

Your intro is on the right track and it's good that each paragraph has a specific purpose. But you might do more to explain the process you used to test each tool. What kind of graph did you try to make and for what purpose (and how does it relate to something a college student might need to know how to do)?

Capitalize the names of the tools in the third paragraph. EditGrid, GoogleDocs and Num Sum.

Consider using Wikidot's formatting tool to make your section headers bigger. Use the H1 header format for Introduction and the title of each tool. Then use the H2 header format for each criteria. That will make your article easier to read.

Under EditGrid/Creation of the chart, you mention charts, but in the intro you were focusing on graphs. So which is it? Be specific throughout about what you're focusing on.

Explain the process of creating the chart. What aspects did you find easy and what did you find hard? Your paragraph is a bit short on substance.

It's helpful to have a screenshot of the chart to support your observation about its readability. How weird that you can't export the chart in the EditGrid. I wonder if that's a feature you have to pay for? I can see why you couldn't copy and paste it but are you sure you can't export it as a certain type of file (like a JPG)?

Under GoogleDocs, you mention line chart, but in the previous paragraph on EditGrid you talk about graphs. Which are you making?

I think the grey bar under row 1 in GoogleDocs is to separate out your column headers from the data. So instead of typing January on line 1 you would've typed Month.

Under Readability for GoogleDocs, explain what you mean when you say that they're not "your average line graphs." It sounds like what you made in GoogleDocs is a different type of chart (or graph?) than what you made in the first program. So maybe GoogleDocs has fewer options for types of charts and graphs? (From the screen shot it looks like it has several options; I assume you played with all of them? Maybe they use a different name for the type of line graph you were looking for?)

In NumSum I suspect the labels for the horizontal and vertical axes go on line 1. Then you start your data on line 2.

I wonder how NumSum intends for you to use the graphs you make on the web site. As with EditGrid, I wonder if there's an export option you could look for. Surely they don't expect you to just use screen shots. But maybe they do!

Given that you're offering these as alternatives to Excel, I wonder if you might include a new criteria under each that covers something like Similarities with Excel? Or maybe in your conclusion you could emphasize which program is most like Excel, since that would probably matter to college students.

You can use more than one paragraph for your conclusion so that you can keep each paragraph focused on a specific point. You bring up good points about the pros and cons of each tool. But play around a bit more with Google Docs to see if there actually is a way to create a similar type of line graph like you made in the other two.

Amy's comments by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 19:52

The opening sentence is a little awkward. Maybe "with the growing popularity of the personal computer"? But that still sounds a little outdated. What makes online word processors attractive doesn't necessarily have to do with the popularity of personal computers, if you see what I mean. It does have to do with increases in connection speed, as you note. For college students, the more relevant factor is that they no longer need to purchase expensive Microsoft software in order to have access to fully functional word processing programs. And that the online versions make collaboration much easier. So maybe emphasize that sooner. You might cut the reference to Web 2.0 because your readers might be unfamiliar with the term (and it doesn't necessarily apply to these programs, at least not in the way college students would use the tools).

Your test process is clearly spelled out but is a bit broad. It might've been more helpful to try making a particular kind of document with each program.

1) Zohowriter: the first sentence is a bit awkward. I think you're missing a word or two about logging in or creating an account. Something like: Zohowriter enables users to create a new account using their Google, Yahoo, or other existing account… (use your own words when you revise)

The second sentence is a bit confusing. You say that a feature of ZohoWriter is that there are versions of Google Docs available for the iPhone etc. Did you maybe mean to say that there are versions of ZohoWriter available?

Save the reference to exporting documents until a later section. That doesn't seem to belong under setting up an account.

1) Buzzword: I don't quite understand the first sentence. What does PDF downloads have to do with setting up an account? It sounds like you're saying Buzzword is harder to use, but what about how hard it is to set up a new account?

1) GoogleDocs: Maybe say something about the options for creating an account on Google, since you did the same for ZohoWriter (and will presumably add that to Buzzword)? You also go into the tools available in the program, which doesn't seem to belong in this section. Maybe you need a new section for "Features" or "Similarity to Word" or something like that?

2) Zohowriter: Under the section titled Uploading and Sharing, your first comment is about something unrelated to that topic. Maybe use "Offline Options" as a separate criteria to compare the three tools in? You also mention exporting files, but you don't mention anything about uploading or sharing files. Maybe revise this criteria section to focus on something like "import and export options" and then explain what those are for each program? What file formats can you upload into each program and what are the options for exporting files created in the program? That's where it would be more appropriate to mention that Buzzword exports as PDFs.

Then put sharing and collaboration options in a separate section, since that's a very different aspect from file formats. Under a sharing and collaboration section, explain more about how each tool enables users to collaborate on documents.

Look again at the paragraphs for each tool under your 2) section and I think you'll see that they focus on slightly different things. And the Google Docs paragraph is much longer (and contains info that might be better suited for other sections/criteria). So I recommend revising to keep everything in each section focused on the same topic and to give roughly the same amount of discussion for each tool.

The third section is labelled as Word Processor Interface, but under ZohoWriter you discuss other elements such as the type of documents you can create in addition to word processing. That's not really related to interface, if you see what I mean. If your goal is to show how each program compares as a word processor, then focus only on the word processing interface in this section. Don't cover spreadsheets and presentations as those aren't word processing documents. Also don't cover file formats in this section (which you do in the Google Docs section).

Consider that you're offering these three programs as alternatives to Word (not to Excel or PowerPoint). So maybe focus in the interface section on how the interface is similar to or different from Word's. Presumably by "interface" you mean the tools and options available for word processing work, such as formatting, auto-text, spelling and grammar checking, and so on.

You might find it helpful to create a more specific test process, such as creating a word processing document that includes text that is centered, colored, in bullet list format, and double spaced, for example, and that perhaps includes an image. Try making the same document in each program and record how easy or hard it was to do each step. Then maybe test out the features for collaborating on and sharing the document. Then you could use criteria relevant to that process, like this:

Creating a new account
Creating a new document
Formatting options (maybe compare to Word's)
Importing images
Exporting options (stay focused on word processing formats)
Collaboration (maybe include whether you can insert comments)
Additional features (this might be where to mention what each program can do that goes beyond Word, like that Google Docs can translate into other languages)

Or something like that. Basically the article needs some work on structure.

Your conclusion is on the right track but could probably be worked into two longer paragraphs, perhaps one to explain why you don't recommend Buzzword for college projects and another to recap why you recommend Google Docs and ZohoWriter (or to emphasize what situations would make either one more preferable). That ZohoWriter is most like Word would probably be of particular interest to your readers.

Amy's comments by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 19:35

Good job with the opening paragraph: helps readers see why college students might want to use one of these tools.

The wording of the sentence starting "Where you can save" is a little awkward. Consider revising that and the previous sentence so that you express all of your criteria in one sentence.

Intro is on the right track in spelling out why you chose to test those particular criteria.

Maybe use H1 format for Empressr (and the other two) to make it much bigger than it is right now.

Rather than just telling users that it's confusing to figure out how to insert a photo on Empressr, say more about how to do it. The subsections need more development. They should be in paragraph format rather than short answer. Give readers more evidence for your claims.

The tools section under Empressr is more well developed. It's good that you found something positive about the site, which otherwise sounds pretty unimpressive!

If Brinkpad is more for creating images than presentations, then why use it as one of your three presentation tools? (You can keep it, but it sounds like GoogleDocs would've been a better third alternative to PowerPoint)

Under Zoho Show/Inserting a picture, tell readers how to insert an image so that they can see what's easy about it.

Your conclusion is on the right track. But if you think Brinkpad is useful only for little kids, then your readers will wonder why you even inclulded it in your test process. It shouldn't have met your initial limiting criteria if what you were looking for were alternatives to PowerPoint. So consider changing that language.

Your review makes it clear why you recommend Zoho Show!

Amy's comments by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 04:56

Effective intro. Each paragraph stays focused on its purpose.

Citation Machine/Ease of Use: I'm not sure what you mean by the formatting being unusual, so maybe reword that sentence. Consider developing this section a bit further.

It seems a little odd to put time consumption and autocite together, esp. since autocite was one of your limiting criteria, wasn't it? In other words, did you even test a tool that doesn't have it? Maybe mention the problems with autocite under a section on formatting accuracy?

The sentence that starts "At the end of the process, Citation Machine" is a run on. But good point about how the site doesn't remind users to alphabetize the bibliography.

Either include the proper format for the publication titles in your samples (they should be underlined or italicized), or m=include a note about why they're not. I wonder why Citation Machine put "definition" at the end of the Sports Illustrated entry, or is that a typo?

OK, I can better understand iin your section on EasyBib why you put time consumption and autocite together.

The screenshot of Easy bib's export panel plus the sample in Word is helpful.

Since EasyBib comes out the "winner," maybe put it third in order instead of second? (so you're leading up to the best option)

What confusion was caused by KnightCite's autosave option? I got a little lost there. But otherwise you do a very nice job of laying out the benefits and weaknesses of the site.

Interesting how Citation Machine fares so poorly. I'll be sure to suggest that my other writing classes check your review before they consider using it.

Good job pointing out the warning about always double checking formatting.

Overall, nicely done.

Amy's comments by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 04:41

Good job helping readers see how a photo sharing site might be relevant to college course work.

As for your test criteria, what about including editing options as another criteria? You could explain to what extent each site lets users edit photos after they've been uploaded.

Good job keeping each paragraph of the intro focused on a specific point.

Flickr gives you other ways of sharing photos, such as giving people the URL to the page with the photo on it, so maybe clarify that you're focusing on how the site enables sharing with a group?

Under Speed of Process, clarify what process you're talking about. Creating the group? Uploading photos to the group? Downloading them? Or what?

I thought on Shutterfly you could create albums that you share with others. My sister's family periodically sends out links to her Shutterfly album.

What process is it on Shutterfly that takes so long? You probably need to clarify what process you're referring to in that section under each tool.

What about adding something like ease of exporting or linking to your criteria, since presumably the group members need to be able to do something with the images after they've been uploaded (like download them to put into PowerPoint or create direct links to them like you did for this page).

Interesting how easy it is to share photos with Photobucket and yet how hard they make it to form groups.

I can see why you recommend Flickr. Your conclusion is well done.

Amy's comments by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 04:25

Intro needs more development. Use several paragraphs, one for each point or purpose. For example, use one to more clearly explain what mind mapping is (maybe look up a definition and paraphrase it). Then use another to explain how college students might use a mind mapping tool. Then a third to explain the process you used to test out three tools (or that could possibly be combined with the second). Then maybe a fourth to explain your test criteria.

You might put a brief description of the tool first, before you show how it measures up to each criteria.

Watch out of for overuse of "it." Also watch out for run-on sentences created by using only a comma to separate two complete sentences. (There's a run-on under of Use).

The breakdown of criteria seems effective, but you might have an additional criteria for output options. That's different from editing. Also be careful not to repeat material in ease of use and ease of editing (they overlap a bit). For that matter, what about adding a criteria for ease of sharing? (since this is meant to be a social media tool)

Presumably you'll add more screen shots?

Maybe give a bit more evidence to explain what makes mindomo hard to use.

From the features it sounds like mindomo might be more useful for complex note-taking. Too bad it's not user friendly.

Change capitalization: iPhone and Twitter

You might say a bit more about how each tool handled your test process, so that students can see how each would handle the kind of project they might need it for. That would help you develop your analysis a bit.

Your conclusion could use a little development, but it's clear that you found mindmeister the most effective tool. Maybe you could say something about the kind of projects it would be well suited for?

Overall, definitely on the right track!

Amy's comments by Amy GoodloeAmy Goodloe, 20 Feb 2010 04:13
ElusidElusid 18 Feb 2010 23:41
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Online Presentations

(1) The introduction was a bit confusing to follow and some of the sentences were awkwardly formatted. If anything there is too much writing. The introduction is meant to briefly introduce the topic you're talking about and not state everything at once.

(2) The body is organized correctly but the titles should either all be questions or statements like "Where can you save it?" and "Is it easy to navigate?" and "Is it easy to insert a picture?"

(3) The only full paragraphs you really have are the introduction, conclusion, and the "Tools available" sections. Most everything else is either a sentence or two. Having screen shots was a nice touch and you have plenty of them. It was nice to have the warning section for Zoho Show.

(4) Well I personally wouldn't say that Brinkpad is something that a little kid would use… Maybe reword that for people that aren't totally computer literate and that it might not be complex enough for college students.

Personally I would write this sentence without the "Zoho" at the end

"Zoho is comparable to many Microsoft programs, so if you are familiar with THEM, which THEmajority of computer users are, then it is very easy to follow Zoho."



by ElusidElusid, 18 Feb 2010 23:41

(1) Introduction: Combine intro and criteria for testing into the same heading.

(2) You need to divide your body paragraphs and further develop your last two tool paragraphs.

(3) LiveMocha: you describe this tool in a lot of detail. Good Job You need to do the same with the other two tools and divide them in to criteria like Livemocha. Screenshots were hella good.

(4) Conclusion seem adequate. I get the drift that livemocha rules but maybe because you havent looked at the other two tools in as much depth.

(5) No edits that we can see at the moment.

(6) Ethos: Sounds like you know and are familiar with spanish
Logos: Easy to follow
Pathos: Screen shots helped and would help people learn spanish more easier.

Comments By Pearce and Travis by KekoaKekoa, 18 Feb 2010 23:41

1. Great intro, just separate it into more paragraphs.

2. The organization of the body of the article is good.

3. Empressr/Where can you save it?: Make this into a complete sentence.
Zoho/Tools Available: Change the fourth sentence to something like "Zoho doesn't have a lot of fonts."

4. Good conclusion and comparison between each tool. It was helpful how you added a proper use for each tool, also.

5. Empressr/Is it easy to navigate?: Change the wording of the first sentence; "such as prompts do not.." doesn't make sense.
Empressr/Tools Available: Change the wording of the first sentence and put a comma after "But".
Brinkpad/Is it easy to navigate?: Insert a semicolon in place of the comma in the first sentence.
Zoho/Tools Available: Put a comma after "Also".

6. The authors establish ethos through their numerous screen shots and because they give a helpful warning. Ethos could be strengthened by correcting the grammatical errors. They establish pathos also through their screen shots, which give great visuals. They establish logos through their logical orgainzation and compelling, informative introduction.

Comments by hayleyd and kayzn by hayleydhayleyd, 18 Feb 2010 23:40

1) Good because they cover all aspects and include limiting factors and lots of detail. Could explain more on how they tested the tools.
2) Well organized and easy to see when a new tool starts. Could improve on putting more space between each tool so the transition is smoother.

Couldn't finish due to time constraints

(1) The introduction should be broken up into multiple paragraphs. You did a good job defining why college students should need this. You also clearly defined your criteria you were going to test. But failed to explain the processes of how you were going to test the 3 different tools. Maybe include a brief overview of the tools for comparison.

(2) The article is organized into 3 main topics which is correct, but it is confusing on which is which. Try clarifying your ideas with underlining words and using all of the available tools. There is only one paragraph per criteria point(perhaps expand a bit).

(3) The info in the paragraphs cover all points but are all very short. Be sure that you include the features that you liked and did not like so that the conclusion will have a basis of comparison.

(4) The conclusion is very short and lacks major content. there are many unsupported claims, such as that pixir is the best for college student. Say which features out-strive the others and what makes them better. Cover all criteria in conclusion and make sure it correlates with the introduction to some degree. ADD MORE

(5) first sentence substitute common for frequent. Take a look at all of the sentences with commas, they appear to may be run ons at times.

(6) Ethos: The authors do not do very good job in establishing ethos. the appearance of the article seems some-what unfinished. i am sure that the final draft will have more content. the overall organizaton is good. the content needs a bit of ellaboration.

1) The format is very clear. We especially like the first paragraph and how it take life of a college student and their budget into account. However, include your testing criteria and why you chose it.

What makes these three tools the easiest? This would be a good place to include your testing criteria.

2) The headings and format are very effective. Some of the information included in the each criteria is lacking. For example, "readability of the graph" while this is a fairly basic concept, include facts such as what makes a graph read able.

3) same comment as #2. Try to expand on some of the material.

4) very good conclusion. It nicely restates the criteria and tools used. This created a nice comparison to formulate a solid conclusion.

5) Reformat the placement of the screen shots so they are all similar.

Ethos- the intro nicely shows ethos. You mention your experience as college which offer great credibility with the use of graphs

Logos- with the exception of a couple misplaced graphs, the format is great. Clear and concise.
Suggestions- replace the graphs. Stonger/larger headers

Pathos- The into conveys a great use of persuasion, and hooks the reader nicely.

Ethan Nyeste, Luke Devitt by enyesteenyeste, 18 Feb 2010 23:39

1. I like how you give good detail on how this tool can help college kids, and overall you give a good idea of what all these tools do. It's helpful to college kids that are trying to take screen shots for a presentation. They have a lot of criteria to base ooff of, but it sums up as what tool is easiest to use, which is good. I like how they have a separate paragraph for judging each

Commented on by nduran8 by nduran8nduran8, 18 Feb 2010 23:35
page 1 of 212next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License