Review essay Assignment | College Homework Help

Provide a sample in-text citation that you plan to use in your evaluation essay you are currently writing.  Use one of the head/body/tail combinations from our textbook (Chapter 2).  Then create a second citation for the same source, but use a different head/body/tail combination.  As the week progresses, comment on your class mates’ in-text citations. Do you think they were cited correctly?  Why or why not?  How do different patterns create different impressions about the source?

During the week, go back and review your classmates’ posts and discuss similarities and differences between your response and your peers’ responses?

 

 

 

I appreciate your work on this rough draft!

This assignment required you to write a 750-1,000 word review of a website about ADD or ADHD. You were to include a minimum of two scholarly sources and write a cohesive essay, which included an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

In addition, you were to develop a set of criteria that the general public would deem acceptable, describe the website, and explain how it does (or does not) perform the established criteria.

Please carefully consider the comments I have made, and use the written to inform your revision. If I were score the rubric based on the first draft, you would receive the following scores:

• Develop a set of criteria acceptable for a website about diseases and disorders: 5
• Describe the website and explain how is performs against the established criteria: 5
• Organization: 4
• Paper Format: 4
• Language Use and Style: 5
• Grammar and Mechanics: 4

 

This scoring does not guarantee you will receive the same score on the final draft. Rather, this simply reflects the assessment of the first draft. The good news is you still have the opportunity to revise! If you have additional questions, please contact me in the Private Forum.

 

All the best,

Jennifer

 

Mayo Clinic website Authenticity

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has continued to be a matter of public health priority, with more researchers and scholars tireless seeking more information about the same. This is because thedisease is known to interfere with the normal functioning of the individual and overall development, especially in children. Due to internet invention, health sciences have witnessed a growing number of websites offering different kinds of information on various disease conditions, including ADHD. The Mayo Clinic, in particular, is among the critical sites in health sciences that have credible information and have been in operation for over a century. The primary goal of the site is to improve patient care through research and education to the public. It continues to receive high ratings and has severally been ranked as a top health website, and this reflects its commitments to offer high-quality care to all its patients (Mayo Clinic, 2020)However, to judge this site adequately, five essential guidelines must be assessed thoroughly, including the authority, accuracy, objectivity, currency, and coverage. Mayo clinic website depicts high levels of accuracy, credibility and currencyin its content aimed to educate its audience on ADHD.

First, the mayo clinic website portrays a high level of accuracy in the information relating to ADHD. The high degree of professionalism depicted within the site and the general organization contribute to the accuracy standards of the information. There is also a high level of consistency shown with the lack of misspellingand grammatical errors, which proves that fact-checking takes place before publication(Mayo Clinic, 2020). According to Agrawal (2019), websites that offer less to none adverts pop-up could be more trusted as it implies that their main intention is to provide factual information to the reader. The Mayo Clinic website is managed by a team of experts who include medical professionals with the capacity to offer accurate information. These experts have engaged in clinical evaluations that provide precise information, contributing to the website’s credibility.The diversity of the medical professional team and specialists within the organization portrayslegitimacy and the possibility that the information on the sites is not biased. Lastly, the URL (org) of the website, which shows that it is an organization also contributes to the credibility of the information offered (Grand Canyon University, 2015)

Secondly, the website is trustworthy due to the level of coverage it depicts. In this case, the authors’ information is similar to that found in other sources, including books, peer-reviewed articles, and other print media. The site also provides several references that can be used in validating the information and contact information for different personnel that can be consulted. More so, there are links to external sites where further information and clarification can be obtained(Mayo Clinic, 2020).  Unlike other sites, Mayo Clinic offers the audience an opportunity to book an appointment with a doctor for further assistance. Mayo clinic successfully covers the topic of ADHD, offering all the information that the audience would be interested in knowing, including the symptoms, causes, diagnosis, and treatment.  The site is easy to read and well organized, and this addresses the needs of the target audience.

Lastly, the currency of the information given also proves the credibility of the website.The website’s currency is an essential element when determining the validity of a webpage as it shows how the information provided makes sense to the present generation and is still useful(Mayo Clinic, 2020). The last update, which is also the date on which the web page was created, dates back to July 2019 less than a year ago, which shows that the information provided is recent. According to Danielson (2006), when looking at scientific sources, one ought to avoid those published or last updated more than five years as their relevance to the current situation may have decreased. A good website needs to be updated at least once a year.All the links within site are active and lead to the intended sites (Grand Canyon University, 2015). The information provided on the website is concurrent with that found on other sites in health sciences and more so it is relevant to its users.  Since ADHD still affects many communities, the information provided in this site is always useful to many people.

In the recent past, the increased number of internet users has led to the mushrooming of many health sciences websites thus the need to determine credibility before adopting any information. Using accuracy, coverage, and currency of the website as the criteria, Mayo Clinic stands out as a credible source on the information it offers regarding ADHD. The site was established more than two decades ago and using a team of different professionals and experts. It continues to contribute to scientific research and knowledge necessary for the wellbeing of the people and this can be associated with its credibility. Coverage can be seen in the way its information is line with produced in other websites. The website was also updated within the last year, and this shows its currency of the information. Using this site would be beneficial to its users, and it offers insight into the main elements related to ADHD.

 

 

 

 

References

Grand Canyon University. (Ed.). (2015). Writing with purpose. Retrieved from http://gcumedia.com/digital-resources/grand-canyon-university/2015/writing-with-purpose_ebook_1e.php

Mayo clinic. (2020). Adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) – Diagnosis and treatment – Mayo Clinic. Mayoclinic.org. (2020). Retrieved May 27, 2020, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/adult-adhd/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20350883.

Agrawal, S. (2019). Automated Credibility Assessment of Web Page (Doctoral dissertation, International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad).

Mayo clinic. (2020). About Mayo Clinic – About Us – Mayo Clinic. Mayoclinic.org. (2020). Retrieved May 27, 2020, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/about-mayo-clinic?_ga=2.252041545.1112393513.1590523919-1318524157.1590523919.

Danielson, D. R. (2006). Web credibility. In Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (pp. 713-721). IGI Global.

 

 

You are correctly following the GCU-style template

Excellent

Well done! The criteria developed are comprehensive and well researched providing solid expectations for a website about diseases and disorders.

Excellent

Excellent! The description of the website is clearly presented and inclusive. Your explanation on the performance against the established criteria is thorough and demonstrates depth.

Good

Good work in organizing the content. The introduction explains subject and engages readers. The thesis statement is placed appropriately, according to the genre of a review, but needs slight revision. Also, the paragraphs need to be developed around topic sentences which advance the essay’s ideas.

Good

Thank you for your work on the format! The essay lacks ONE of the following (I have highlighted the missing/problematic element):

• Consistency in using double-spacing
• Consistency in using Times New Roman font
• Consistency in using Size 12 font
• Consistency in using one-inch margins and/or correct indentations
• Heading: name, date, course, and instructor
• Header: page numbers
• Correct in-text citations
• Correctly formatted references page
• Correct number of required sources
• Consistency and coordination between in-text citations and references

Please make revisions prior to submitting the final draft.

Excellent

The voice and tone have effectively created an appropriate mood. Your word choice is precise, and you have incorporated concrete nouns and active verbs. You have also used a variety of sentence structures which add to the strength of the ideas presented.

Good

You have demonstrated a high level of control in grammar and mechanics! I found minimal errors in my evaluation of the following (Please look for highlighted words/phrases and/or blue underlining– although not all errors have been identified as such):

• Use of apostrophes
• Use of 1st and 2nd person pronouns
• Capitalization
• Use of commas
• Parallelism
• Pronoun agreement
• Use of quotations
• Use of semicolons
• Sentence structure (fragments and/or run-ons)
• Spelling
• Subject/verb agreement
• Verb tense

Please make revisions prior to submitting the final draft.

Good title

Please capitalize each word in the title except for articles, short prepositions, and conjunctions.

The introduction begins with an effective hook, includes the introduction of topic and significant details, and ends with the thesis.

Based on this first in-text citation, you are doing a great job documenting your sources! Be sure all the remaining citations are also in the correct format.

Rewrite your thesis focusing on an evaluative claim about the website’s credibility and including three subtopics based on the five criteria: accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and/or coverage.

Provide a road map for your reader with each topic sentence. The topic sentence should read like a mini thesis, and should include a transitional word or phrase, a reference to the claim of credibility, and a subtopic. For example, “Firstly, the website thoroughly demonstrates its credibility through the criterion of currency.” Review the remaining topic sentences and revise if necessary.

Be sure to right-click on anything underlined in blue. This indicates a grammatical error, and by right clicking on it and clicking the word Grammar in the drop-down menu, Word provides a mini-grammar lesson and examples for revision.

This paragraph contains substantive evidence/support for the criterion of accuracy.

This paragraph demonstrates an understanding of and support for coverage.

You have chosen relevant examples to support the criterion of currency.

The first sentence in the conclusion should be a restatement of the thesis.

861 words – The paper is within the word count range. I appreciate you meeting the word count requirements for this essay!

References Page:

The references page is included; however, please review and revise it to correct some errors in formatting.

Use the following checklist to find and correct errors:

• Place the references on a separate page
• Use the word References, not Resources, Reference, Works Cited, or Citations
• Omit the colon after the word References
• Center the word References at the top of the page
• Use double spacing
• Use a hanging indent
• Revise the format of the content w/in the entries
• Remove hyperlink feature from each URL
• Omit the extra space after the word References and before the first entry
• Omit the extra space between each entry
• Use Times New Roman font
• In the title of an article, only capitalize the first word, the first word after a colon, proper nouns and/or adjectives, and acronyms
• Websites with a .com domain are not considered scholarly and should be avoided
• Use correct capitalization in names and/or journal titles
• Dictionaries are not scholarly sources (you may use them, but do not consider them as one of your scholarly sources)
• The essay lacks the appropriate number of scholarly sources, which is at least two scholarly sources.
• Use the words Retrieved from before each URL
• Alphabetize the entries without consideration to articles such as a, an, and the

• Italicize journal titles and volume numbers
• Only use the author’s last name and first/middle initial
• Consistency/coordination with the in-text citations
• Include the website being evaluated in the references

 

Example of website entry:

Ministry of Health. (2014). Ebola: Information for the public. Retrieved from http://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/conditions-and-treatments/diseases-and-illnesses/ebolainformation-public

 

Reference citations for GCU eBook in individual sections/chapters:

DeCosta, M. (2015). Becoming a college writer. In Grand Canyon University (Ed.) Writing With Purpose. Available from http://gcumedia.com/digital-resources/grand-canyon-university/2015/writing-with-purpose_ebook_1e.php

 

ENG-105Peer Review Worksheet: Review

Part of your responsibility as a student in this course is to provide quality feedback to your peers that will help them to improve their writing skills. This worksheet will assist you in providing that feedback.To highlight the text and type over the information in the boxes on this worksheet, double-click on the first word.

Name of the draft’s author:Danielle Hughes

Name of the peer reviewer:Richard Wheelen

Reviewer

After reading through the draft one time, write a summary (3-5 sentences)of the paper that includes your assessment of how well the essay meets the assignment requirements as specified in the syllabus and the rubric.

Danielle typed an 861-word essay about the Mayo Clinic’s website. The essay had a good thesis, three supporting paragraphs and a conclusion paragraph. Each paragraph explained each of the three guidelines she chose to write about and supported her thesis well.

 

 

After a second, closer reading of the draft, answer each of the following questions. Positive answers will give you specific elements of the draft to praise; negative answers will indicate areas in need of improvement and revision. Please be sure to indicate at least three positive aspects of the draft and at least three areas for improvement in reply to the questions at the bottom of this worksheet.

Review Content and Ideas

• How effectively does the thesis statement identify the main points that the writer would like to make in this review?

The thesis is clear and concise, covering what will be wrote about in the essay very well

• How successfully does the writer establish a set of criteria that an audience would find acceptable?

Danielle does a good job establishing the criterion she will be writing about.

• How effectively does the writercompare the subject of the review to the established criteria?

The writer did an excellent job in this area, the thesis explained what would be discussed and the writer did not stray from that goal.

• Does the author identify and make comparisons with other evaluations on the same topic and/or websites similar to the subject? Are these sources cited within the essay?As far as I can tell, all sources were cited correctly, and the passages added credibility to the claims made in the paper.

• How persuasively is evidence used to justify the criteria and the comparison?

The author uses citations very well and stays on point with her evaluation of the website.

• How effectively does the essay’s content support the thesis by using strategies appropriate for reviews, as outlined in chapter 9 of Writing with Purpose?

The essay’s content supports the thesis very well, and stays within guidelines, an example of which is the fact the author used a .org website to evaluate or review.

 

Organization

• How effectively does the introduction engage the reader while providing an overview of the paper?

I felt the introduction was powerful and well written, the author did a great job.

• Please identify the writer’s thesis and quote it in the box below.

• Mayo clinic website depicts high levels of accuracy, credibility and currency in its content aimed to educate its audience on ADHD.
• How effectively do the paragraphs develop the topic sentence and advance the essay’s ideas?

Each body paragraph supports each part of the thesis claim by explaining accuracy, credibility, and currency. I felt the author did a great job in this area.

• How effectively does the conclusion provide a strong, satisfying ending, not a mere summary of the essay?

The conclusion starts strong, but I feel that the last sentence was weak, it needs to make a more powerful final statement.

 

 

Format

• How closely does the paper follow GCU formatting style?Is it double-spaced in 12 pt. Times New Roman font?Does it have 1″ margins? Does it use headers (page numbers using appropriate header function)?Does it have a proper heading (with student’s name, date, course, and instructor’s name)?

xYes No N/A

• Are all information, quotations, and borrowed ideas cited in parenthetical GCU format?

xYes No N/A

• Are all sources listed on the references page in GCU format?

xYes No N/A

• Is the required minimum number of sources listed?

xYes No N/A

Language Use and Style

• Are the voice and tone of the essay effective in characterizing ideas and creating the appropriate mood?If “No,” please provide examples of ineffective or inappropriate voice and tone.

xYes No N/A

• How effectively does the paper incorporate a variety of sentence structures that strengthen the ideas, create vitality, and avoid choppiness in the writing?

xYes No N/A

• How would you assess the writer’s diction (i.e., word choice)? Does the writer use active verbs, concrete nouns, and precise words?

xYes No N/A

 

Grammar and Mechanics

• Does the writer use proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling?If “No,” please provide examples of errors in need of correction.

Yes xNo First, the mayo clinic website portrays a high level of accuracy in the information relating to ADHD. Mayo should be capitalized.

• Is the writing clear and comprehensible throughout the draft?If “No,” please provide examples in need of improvement.

xYes No N/A

 

 

Three things that I liked about your draft are:

1. Great opening sentence.
2. The thesis was clear and concise.
3. The last para graph was strong, until the ending

 

Three things that could be improved are:

1. The title was weak.
2. The final sentence needed to have more impact.
3. At least once Mayo was not capitalized.

Overall, I think Danielle did a great job and I feel her paper is very strong. Looking over negative things took me the longest time as there were so few I could find, and I feel like I may be nit picking with those comments. I think Danelle wrote a great paper and if I were to give it a grade right now, it would be 98.9% Great job overall Danielle!