Peer Review Video Games

Peer Review and Commentary—Science Feature

The Lead:

How does the lead pull the reader in and entice her to read on?  Is it surprising, or are claims made that are common knowledge (note: the reader shouldn’t be able to say, ‘well duh.’)?  Is it effective?  Can it be made more effective?  (think details, human drama, evocative language—why do/don’t you want to read on?)

The lead took a very interesting story about a small child who plays violent video game who killed his grandmother in real life. I think that the story was effective because it did not give away the plot at the beginning of the lead.

Does the lead give a clear indication of what the story will be about, or rely on mystery, or both?  Would more of a focus be helpful?  Is the reader aware of the importance of a topic—why it matters and is worth learning about?  Adversely, if for more entertainment purposes, is the topic engaging enough to compel reading?

The lead gives a clear segway into the topic of video game violences, but starts out with mystery. This setup works because the essay needs a little bit of mystery, but not enough to bother the reader. The reader is shown the importance through the mass of examples of shootings in recent history.

Organization:

Consider how the story is structured.  Chronological, thematic, chapter/section-based, inquiry-driven?  Is it effective?  Be specific—if a paragraph doesn’t transition well into the next, mention it and provide suggestions for improvement.

The story is effective because it takes the lead and works out an inquiry about whether shooting games inspire shooting in real life.

Is each paragraph well focused, or are several ideas competing for attention?  How can better focus be achieved?

Each paragraph is well focused and stays on topic throughout. Each paragraph has an individual focus and obeys it.

Are there certain points (factual or narrative based) that require more development?  Are you, the reader, unclear at certain points?  Are any ideas superfluous or distracting?

You wrote that you were going to expand on some of the points you had no touched yet, so expanding on those will complete your points.

Balance of human interest and information.  Point out sections that become too bogged down in dry facts or heavily specialized concepts.  Adversely, find sections that rely on narrative without giving the reader proper background information and factual points of reference.

I think you meshed science with goo very well. Each study contains more text about the study than the data from this study, which is good. You reflect on the data and studies well.

Are claims backed up by examples, evidence, research?  Are sensory details employed effectively?  Are abstractions made concrete through use of examples and details?

There is a lot of evidence for research in this paper. The abstractions are made concrete in this paper through the examples and research that you put in.

How is the story concluded?  Does it wrap up the topic neatly and provide closure?  Does it ask bigger questions or compel the reader to search for more?  Are you left wanting more (and is this a good thing)?  Is it effective?

The story concludes with a reflection on violence in the real world. There are bigger questions asked in this conclusion and it is effective.

Voice and Audience

Characterize the story’s voice and tone?  Is it suitable for the topic?  Is it engaging?  Is it consistent throughout the piece?  If first person POV is used, is this effective or jarring (remember, most story’s should rely on the strength of the topic for engagement, not the evidence of authorial intrusion).

The story has an engaging narrative tone that suits the topic well. The author has consistent voice throughout the story.

Try to characterize the audience.  What venue (publication) do you think this story suits?  Why?  Does the author effectively address this audience (too dumbed-down or sensational, too dry and esoteric)?

The audience is anyone that cares about the issue as well as the general public because they are all affected by this topic.

Mechanics

Mark any ineffective or over-used word/phrase choices.  Mark any repetitive sentence structures.  Offer advice on vocabulary, syntax, and sentence structure.

Mark other grammar issues and typos.

It was good.