Peer Review- Haley Clark

Research Question/Roadmap
1. Does it pose a question? Does the paper identify tensions? Does it say what it’s going to do and what its point is?

She wants to get a closer look and discover the interesting world that people who participate in medieval recreations live in...

Theme
2. What is the quality of the content of the writing: the ideas, perceptions, and point of view? In your words, what is being said? Is it more than a collection of thoughts and observations? According to the author, why does this whole thing matter?

I think that shes trying to say that there is really no way to define normalcy. No one has the authority to say what is normal and what isn't and if you do than you are very close-minded. She does a great job of telling us what she is thinking through the whole research process.

3. Is there too much abstraction or generalization? Underline or circle this language in the paper. In other words, are there so few details, examples and explanations that it ends up dull, empty, impossible to experience? Or, perhaps even impossible to understand? Explain.
In the interview with Sarah.. the part starting with "sometimes.. when i.." was kind of hard to understand. Sarah is an older lady and at the beginning it says that she would be interacting with people that are her age.

4. Is there too little abstraction or generalization and too much clutter of details, examples, and explanations? Too little standing back for perspective? Too little forest per tree?
I think there is a little bit too much generalization.. She needs to get a little bit deeper and look for an interesting thing to talk about that no one would think of. Nothing really made me say 'WOWWWW.. i would have never guessed!' So she might want to work on that a bit.

5. What is the practical significance of the artifact? What idea does it represent?

She talked about a cross-stich, but needs to get into greater detail about it. I think its cool that the cross-stich is used as a sort of promise ring for people in relationships.

6. What is the significance of Interview 1? Tells us an insiders perspective of what others think say about the subculture and if they wear there clothes out in public. They don't really care that the outfits might look funny because they like them and its like their uniform.

7. What is the significance of Interview 2? Talks about the group possibly becoming mainstream and the stereotypes an insider thinks there are

8. Are all 3 required scholarly sources developed in the conclusions? NO

9. Is all source material cited according to MLA, both parenthetically and in a Works Cited?

No works cited provided

10. Do the conclusions satisfy the issues the study raises with complexity? How so?
I think that the conclusions should have more complexity to them. They should be more interesting and stand out.

Structure
11. Is the whole thing unified? Is there a central idea to which everything pertains?
What? Are there loose ends that don’t seem purposefully so, but accidently overlooked?
Its unified, but missing some things... Like an artifact. Everything pertains to her trying to either banish or affirm the stereotypes

12. Are the parts arranged in a coherent, logical narrative sequence?

They seemed to be in the right order.. Purpose,Background,Interviews, Conclusion

13. Were the paragraphs really paragraphs? Could you tell what each one was saying? Did they function as helpful and comfortable units of thought, not too much, not too little? Mark any that seem too short or too long.

Some of the paragraphs need to be broken up.. At one point there is a whole page that doesn't have any indentations. I could tell what each was saying.
Language
14. Are the sentences clear and readable? Underline with a wavy line any that you find incorrect or confusing.

The sentences seem to have good structure and are readable. Nothing confused me except for the cross-stich part.

15. Are the words used correctly? List any misused words. Words are used correctly.

16. Is it succinct enough? Not too long, repetitious or dull? Mark any areas for deletion.

I think that the subjective positions and background make it a little dull...It was hard to keep my attention because I thought those things were a bit unnecessary.

17. Is it full enough? Or does the writer squeeze out the juice of human communication and spoken discourse? Is the language, even if correct, dull and indigestible? Does the writer sufficiently use the language of the subculture?

She talks about Cross-stich and larpers. It's not full enough because it is missing details about artifacts. Add more language from the subculture!

18. Does the diction, mood and level of formality fit with ethnography?

The mood seems to flow throughtout the paper and fits with the ethnography.. She should dig a little deeper.. Maybe a bit too formal.

Readerly Response
Describe what was happening to you as you read. Tell which words or phrases stuck out or resonated.

I didn't know what stigma meant.. So i learned something! The larper part was interesting to me.

What happened and what are the implications?

The stereotypes of them being a bit geeky are confirmed, but the people in the subculture don't mind and almost like being that way.

What ideas or beliefs or feelings were brought into this piece? How do multiple points of view contribute to your understanding?

The subculture is more based on historical accuracy than the mythical aspect which i found interesting. She should add more points of view and thoughts.

What understanding of the culture do you have from reading this piece? What gave you this understanding?
The understanding I've gained is that they don't mind that people think they are geeky or whatever. They kind of just do their own thing which I respect. The interviews helped to give me this understanding

The writer has introduced him/herself to you. Describe that meeting. What’s your impression? Did he thrust out his hand for you to shake? Did she sidle up next to you, but fail to look you in the eye? Did he send you a letter bomb or put his arm around your shoulder? Does it seem like the writer is standing on a cliff talking down to an audience below? What sense of the writer do you have? Formal? Casual? Intimate? Jocular? Arrogant? Are you with the writer, against her, or unsure since you don’t really know him?

I'd like to see more emotions in the writing. More feeling.. It's really casual.. Not very intimate. I'm with the writer because I have been in class with her. Her voice is kind of drowned out.

Is the writer giving in?
The writer needs to gain more authority

What do you want, need, or wish for?

I want to see more details and research.. more explanation about the artifacts. Maybe a little bit about the history and where medieval recreations began?