To provide complete feedback to your peers and to review your own paper thoroughly, review each paper three times : (1) for clarity of purpose, organization, content, flow, and sense of audience; (2) for format and APA referencing; and, finally, for (3) conciseness and mechanics. First Read— Provide comments related to purpose, organization, content, flow, and audience: Identify the strengths and offer suggestions for any weaknesses based on answering the following questions: Does the memo report’s introductory paragraph identify the need or problem? Does it preview major headings specifically as they appear in the paper? Does it have some form of the word recommend in it? (It should.) Does the recommendation clearly, concisely state the main points: What cause Global Mind should support AND how to do it (the implementation model)? If a major section contains subsections, does it provide a purpose/main point AND preview the subsections? Remember that just as the introduction previews the major sections, the opening sentence (or two) of a major section must preview any subsections to show how they relate to the major section. Does all the information within a headed section relate to that heading? Can you underline the topic sentence (the controlling idea) of each paragraph? If so, do the other sentences further explain, illustrate, or provide facts related to that point? How well do the ideas relate to one another—can you clearly see the connections or are you wondering how one point relates to another? Is the writer analyzing and drawing conclusions, or is he or she simply presenting information (data dump)? Is the analysis logical? Critically consider the analytical points the writer is making. Does the conclusion include a paragraph discussing risks/drawbacks/disadvantages of the recommendation and effectively mitigating them? Does the conclusion effectively summarize the key points of the analysis (conclusions) and concerns leading to a recommendation that clearly states the cause, implementation model, and reasons supporting these choices? E.g. “Global Mind should…because….” Does the closing sentence specify necessary action or next step(s)? It the content sufficient, logical, and concrete enough to support the recommendation? Do you get the sense that the writer is a competent employee writing to the company’s owner and board or that the writer is a student writing a course paper? Second Read— Provide comments related to format, APA referencing. Offer suggestions for any weaknesses based on answering the following questions: Did the writer get rid of all of Laurie’s guidelines, examples, headings, etc. and replace them with his or her own format and content? Does the first page have an effective, professional letterhead? Do you see a page header with page numbers (starting after first page)? Do you see the memo header in correct order and correct alignment? Is the memo addressed to the owner and board (“TO:” line)? Does the writer’s name and title appropriately appear in the “FROM:” line? Has the writer initialed by his or her name? Is the month written out with the date and year? How well does the subject line represent the report’s purpose? [Capitalize the subject line headline style.] Is full-block format used—flush left, single spaced, double spaced between paragraphs? Do the headings follow the text examples or in-class examples? If subheadings are used, can you clearly distinguish the higher-order headings from the lower-order ones? Are figures/tables introduced by number in the text and explained before they appear? Are figures/tables clear and understandable? Are figures/graphics helpful or nonessential (fluff)? Are figures/tables labelled and titled in the caption? Has the source of each figure/table (or the information used in them) been referenced under the figure/graphic as illustrated in class? Has the writer attributed the sources of his or her information throughout the text using APA parenthe…

Looking for a solution written from scratch with No plagiarism and No AI?

WHY CHOOSE US?