AR Sample Papers Review

Writing in Political Science

Good

1.Organized structure of the paper was good. They outwardly state how the paper is organized and sticks with this.
2.The writer took extra time to interview a member involved with political science, Professor Lai from The University of Iowa. Shows a type of dedication and the extra effort they put into the piece. 
3.They compared and contrasted academic vs. non-academic works using the same three ideas (structure, references, and language) to show the differences in writing styles. 

Bad

1.I felt the quotes he was using could have been utilized more, many were in-direct quotes and little in-text citations. 
2.Although I liked that they went the extra mile to interview a profession in the field, I feel the interview could have been more instead of additives in the intro and conclusion. 
3.Parts of the paper felt repetitive and padded.

Writing in Psychology
Good
1.Added two separate interviews from professionals in their field. Utilized the interviewer more than the last paper, allowing the audience to learn the types of writing a person in the interviews job would do daily. 
2.The other examples used in the paper I felt were good, and the writer does a good job at explaining how they are connected to her point.
3.Parts of the paper feel nicely descriptive and help flesh out the paper more.

Bad

1.Many APA rules were broken here. No title page was added, the pages are not numbered, in-text citations are not cited correctly, and the heading for the first page is in a different font than the rest of the paper.
2.The interview portion felt very long, with many citations that could have been broken down or summarized. 
3.Very short, with a majority of the paper talking about non-academic works and interviews. Very little is mentioned in academic articles and how they differ from non-academic. 
4.Unprofessional citation page that is not alphabetized and had blue links.

Writings as a Creative Writer
Good
1.Good introductions, shows authors writing style and feels more lively and colorful than other introductions. 
2.Focus on many of the same key points of writing (structure, audience, etc.)  between academic and nonacademic to show how that differs and how they are similar.
3.Good use of citations in the second part of the paper (non-academic section), that shows more of the writing style compared to the first section of the paper (academic).

Bad

1.The academic section of the paper felt it was talking more about what writers advise other writers to write about while not providing examples of what they are preaching. 
2.I felt some of the citations could have been either explained more or explained in a different way that would best exemplify the citation and how it adds to the writer's point. 
3.Some sentence structures in the paper are worded strangely and make it difficult to understand what was being said.

Writing in the Field of Economics
Good
1.Properly structured and intended large quotation in APA format, something I have not seen in previous papers. 
2.Well organized and structured reference pages. 
3.The intro paragraph for non-academic writing is well put together and briefly summarized points of non-academic writing.

Bad

1.The intro feels very long with unneeded extras. For example, the audience will get to know what sources you use when you address them in the paper, the author didn't have to write a whole paragraph in the intro about what sources they used.
2.The part about genres in non-academic writing feels less organized and more confusing compared to other parts, making it the most difficult to understand the overall point.
3.I wish that, similar to the non-academic, there was a brief intro paragraph to segue into academic writing and keep with the structure of the paper. 

Writings in Engineering 

Good
1.The citations they use are very well picked. More often than not, the author is able to not only summarize what the citations say, but add on to them with reasoning as to why it supports their point.
2.Their writing style is the right amount of professional and accessible. They are able to not use too difficult language, while also not writing too casually.
3.References are very nicely formatted and structured properly. 

Bad

1.Although the conclusion is not terrible, it felt very much rush or was handled with less care compared to the rest of the paper
2.While the author did shorten down the paragraphs, there is still a lot of places that felt like a wall of words. 
3.The conclusion didn't conclude the points of academic and non-academic as best as it could have.

Writings in the Business Discipline 
Good
1. Beginning half of the intro is very eye catching and interesting to readers. 
2.I liked how they included intros that tell what academic writing is and what non-academic writing is to fill in readers who might not know this information before reading.
3.One thing that is different between this paper and others I have read is that it includes a section talking about what both academic and non-academic writings should have. 

Bad
1.Perhaps some sections could have been divided more with subheadings, just to break up the sea of paragraphs and help the reader find key points, like I have seen in other papers.
2.In the references, there are only 4 sources listed, not counting the personal interview. Most of the resources are from the same person too. I think it would be best to branch out and add more for the paper. 

3.The second half of the intro leads more to be desired given the beginning. It just feels like every other paper I have read so far.