Interchange Conference Transcript

Instructor: Nancy Reichert
Class: 1101/009
Conference: MAIN
Sort order: chronological


[#0001 11:05:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
"Our first paper is Dean: he would like to know if he defined his terms good enough and if the paper was boring" - Shelby

[#0002 11:09:44 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
Dean-

you get very technical in you paper, which is good, but remember to explain them in a way we can understand. For example, explain what some of the cerifications are for.

[#0003 11:10:18 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
I thought that most oh his quotes were short and pointess because the come in the middle of a sentence and only seem to finish the original thought.

[#0004 11:09:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Dean, your terms were defined fine, your paper was easily followed and it was interesting and entertaining.

[#0005 11:07:07 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
I think Dean defined his terms, a good example of this would be in his second paragraph.

[#0006 11:14:33 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
Dean, i liked how you incorporated SPSU's quote into the paper. The facts seemed somewhat daunting though, maybe put some imagery and color into the paper to help blance out all of the loads

[#0007 11:10:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
Yeah, just went and checked. Never mind.

[#0008 11:10:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
You need to combine some of your small choppy sentances into big flowing ones. The terms are defined well my you sort of lost my interest on the second page. You look like you have good solid information... You just need to make this paper yours. Add anecdotes or interesting statistics to spice things up a little. Good luck!

[#0009 11:10:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
You had good quote usage in paragraph 6, but you could talk more about what makes a computer slow or fast.

[#0010 11:10:10 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
You did a good job defining your terms and you kept my interest fairly well. Also you did a good job using your quotes and they flowed well.

[#0011 11:11:43 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
Yes thw paper does keep the reader's interest, and the terms were well defined throughout the paper

[#0012 11:11:32 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
dean

i dont have the slightest clue what you can do to make a paper about computers interesting. i did think that you did a good job of incorporating quotes in the second page. i kind of like the opening paragraph. i think that the parts about the parts and functions of a computer where kind of confusing

[#0013 11:14:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
I think that your paper did a good job of keeping my attention i thought it was very interesting because it effects our daily lives, the trems helped define your topic, but your quotes still need alot of work some of them were in there for i think no reason

[#0014 11:07:18 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Personally, i actually did get a little bored with your paper. Perhaps there is a way that you could spice it up in certain areas? Certain antecdotes perhaps? You defined the terms very well. I believe that someone who knows very little about networking could easily follow the paper with ease.

[#0015 12:14:49 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
The paper was very detailed, but understandable. I have a basic knowledge on the topic so I understood everything

[#0016 11:13:53 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
No Dean I did not find your paper boring. I thought it was well developed and researched.

[#0017 11:10:52 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I would suggest introducing your source a bit more but the best authority seems to be Noack because they know the qualifications.

[#0018 11:11:30 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Naok seems to be your best authority/source because you get the most interesting info from him.

[#0019 11:04:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
Yes i agree with Brent. Listing all of the programs seemed a little repertative and slightly took away my interest. I still enjoyed your paper though, and with some minor changes it could become really captivating

[#0020 11:12:32 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
The paper also flowed well

[#0021 11:08:43 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
To me you paper kept my interest... I dont know much about the technical aspects of computers and networks but he made it easy for the general audience to understand.

[#0022 11:15:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
yes creig, it was well reasearched

[#0023 11:15:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
The paper goes into great detail., but I think you should have a stronger introduction that will catch the reader's attention.

[#0024 11:04:55 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Dean,

For me, a non-techy, I could use clearer definitions. Why not pull all the definitions on hardware and software and the network together in the second paragraph or so and give us more information.

[#0025 11:14:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I did get confusing with your title because I didnt know what kind of network you were talking about. Maybe you can come up with something creative about networking to tie into your title.

[#0026 11:11:24 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I really liked the little anecdote about the Think Quest competition

[#0027 11:12:30 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Ashleigh Doud:
Dean, your terms were very well defined, but not everyone knows things about your topic, so maybe make it a little bit easier for everyone to understand

[#0028 11:15:07 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I think when you state parts of the computer in the second computer, you should define, not to technical but definetly jsut a brief description of each.

[#0029 11:15:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
i thought ur paper was very interesting. everything was explained very well and it kept me up to speed. ur paper flowed very well and very smooth.

[#0030 11:13:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
oh by the way i dont have the slightest clue about computers if somethng goes wrong the only thing i know is 1-800-www-dell thats how i get through thoughs tough times

[#0031 11:17:12 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
maybe insted of having sevral examples of every topic, only have one to remove all of the technical stuff from the paper.

[#0032 11:13:22 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
I liked the quote on computer engineering, but the paper was about networking i thought?

[#0033 11:06:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Dean,

You also wanted to know if your paper was interesting I think it is, but I think it would be even more interesting to start us off with an intro that maybe shows what it takes to defend against a hacker.

[#0034 11:12:28 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
You did a good job explaining things so that people with basic computer knowledge could understand the paper but you should go more in depth about what it means to gain authority in networking.

[#0035 11:15:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I liked how you wen through the different certifications one had to hae to become a network specialist.

[#0036 11:16:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
THe computer jargo you used was alittle confusing if you didnt have a background in the subject

[#0037 11:13:24 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
The anecdotes really keep the reader's attention. They also help establish your authority on the subject. Well done with that.

[#0038 12:17:06 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
The paper seemed well researched will alot of factual information, but I would like to hear more about the history of networking

[#0039 11:16:28 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
u did a good job givng examples of hardware software and the different languages.

[#0040 11:20:32 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
I found his paper interesting to read and the terms were clearly defined.

[#0041 11:06:51 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kira Melville:
There needs to be an intro... but to answer the question, the tearms are great! I did not find myself wondering away from the paper. It was very on topic and the incorporation of all of the net 'languages' are very good. I feel like I have a better understanding on this topic just from reading your paper. Which in my understanding is one of the points to write the authority paper. Some of the sentences are very choppy and need some transition sentences, but some just have word problems and sentence structure problems. These are not major, but to make sure the paper runs more smoothly, I would go back and refer to some of my suggestions. I am also glad that you explained everything down to the numbers on the second page first paragraph. This really helped me understand.

[#0042 11:06:53 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
I liked how you used your personal history in conjuction with your topic. It adds an element that allows some of the more technical students to relate to you and your topic

[#0043 11:16:32 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Your statistics on your topic was refreshing and got me interested in your paper towards the end.

[#0044 11:13:36 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I think Dr. Reichart has a good idea. An intro of defending off a hacker would be pretty cool

[#0045 11:10:32 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
i disagree with Kevin. The way you described 802.11 was so well put one could easily understand it.

[#0046 11:07:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Thane,

That's not a bad idea. What made people think that computers that could talk to each other would revolutionize the way we communicate?

[#0047 12:18:09 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I agree with Robert it seems you know alot about this topic

[#0048 11:18:20 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
Everything is very well defined, but I think you should make it a little more intersting. You have good facts and things, but it gets kind of boring.

[#0049 11:19:08 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
kira, i liked how you incorporated sources that sounded like they were more educational, it seems like many of hte quotes may have come from the schools or at least professors who kenw what they were talking about

[#0050 11:19:43 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
there were some grammitcial erros, if those were cleared up i think it would make for a great paper

[#0051 11:22:51 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
You incorporated your sources well and made architecture an interesting topic at the same time, I say kudos to you.

[#0052 11:16:33 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
No, i found no quotes applicable with her choice of topic and i dont see how they could be put in he paper.

[#0053 11:15:58 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I think you did a good job of incorperating the sources and they flow well but you may want to introduce your sources a bit better.

[#0054 11:16:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Kira, your paper had good quote usag, especially in paragraph 4. I think it had good flow and transition. I liked this paper because it was very easy to read and keep up with, it was also very interesting.

[#0055 11:16:28 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
kira,

i thought that the sources that you used were good and they flowed well. But you didn't talk about your own authority on architecture.

[#0056 11:16:49 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
Your sourcses were well incorporated, and your transitions between ideas were very smooth. However, try to have more sources that back up your authority.

[#0057 12:20:36 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
You did a good job o nthe sources especially with the firsthand experience with Gwynne Darden.

[#0058 11:20:24 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
I think you did a great job incorpurating sources into your paper, it really helped to explain your topic well

[#0059 11:17:52 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
i think your paper flowed pretty well. ia also liked how you talked about working with the aritecture firm that made men think that you had some authority in the field. i also think that you did a good job incorporating your sources in the paper.

[#0060 11:18:08 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
Yes I think you did do a good job with the sources and Gwynne Darden seems to be your best source

[#0061 11:17:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
I did not like how u went on and on about your mentor though, too repetitive.

[#0062 11:16:46 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
The quotes themselves were good but you really need to tell who it is your quoteing and what the heck npag is

[#0063 11:14:32 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
I think your sources are incorporated well. Example: your quote by chauncey in you sixth paragraphy was well used because the quote helps you to explain what the ARE is to the reader.

[#0064 11:21:13 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
You did a good job of using your souces by having quotes. You also do a good job of explaining or talking about the quote afterwards.

[#0065 11:24:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
Include information on how architecture can be taught to someone who is new to it.

[#0066 11:14:48 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
michael i was wondering that too!

[#0067 11:17:56 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
Kira- I really liked your intro and I loved the description of Darden. I think you did well incorporating your sources into your paper and your sources look solid and reliable. It looks like you're in good shape... you just need to expand a little (hopefully your interest in your major/future is enough to merit more than a page and a half). Good luck!

[#0068 11:11:07 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kira Melville:
no pagination. thsi is npag. It is for internet citations

[#0069 11:17:30 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I like the way you kept relating the whole process of becoming qualified to your boss. Keeps the paper personal and interesting.

[#0070 11:18:12 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
Also, you talk about how Ms. Gwynne went to Japan for her undergraduate courses. How did that course differ from courses offered here in the States?

[#0071 11:18:10 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Gwynne is your best authority, to me at least, she supplied the most info about architechture and you wolrked for her, so you might be able to get some info straight from her, if not already.

[#0072 11:19:15 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
I agree I also like the intro

[#0073 11:20:55 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Kira I really liked your paper because of your personal experience. I think your experience with Gwynne is definetly going to help you in your field. You got an early hands on approach to your field that definetly sets you apart from many.

[#0074 11:22:00 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
I think you might want to add another authority and talk about your own aliitle more that might help give the reader a little information on whyyou have choosen the topic

[#0075 11:18:16 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
i like the questions in the sixth paragraph. It gave a more personal feel to the paper. But you need to answer the questions. don't just leave the reader hanging on looking for answers

[#0076 11:11:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
Kira-

I believe that you incorporated your sources very well. One of your strongest writing ablities is how you create a visual image in the readers mind of your mentor Gynne Darden. After reading the segment on her I felt like i had known her visually for some time, and that if she walked into a room i could easly pick her out

[#0077 11:25:28 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
I agree that gwynne is your best source, you seem to have the highest repects for her.

[#0078 11:18:49 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
You could go more in depth on the different types of architects and the things the build and design.

[#0079 12:22:37 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
Gwynne Darden is best authority because she is an architect and you have all that background information.

[#0080 11:18:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I'd suggest throwing around a few of the big names in architecture. Yes Gwynne is a good authority but try to elaborate more on what it means to gain authority

[#0081 11:15:19 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
The introduction was a great first impression on your paper. After reading the paper is that you did a great job incorporating your sources into your paper. The only thing i didnt like was how you used your mentor as the highest authority. You seemed to talk about her a bit much, is there anyone else that is of a higher authority?

[#0082 11:12:15 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Kira,

Most of your quotes were done well. I indicated in the text where you could do a bit better. Maybe you could get more source information about what you have to learn to become an authority on architecture. What are some of the big names?

I did like how you used the information on Gwynne--we saw how a lot of what you were talking about applied to her.

[#0083 11:23:30 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
it was pretty neat that you had the oppertunity to be in the position with gwynne darden. very intresting

[#0084 11:26:11 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
mention some of the architecture work you've had to do while a student here.

[#0085 11:19:12 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
You seem to really respect Ms. Darden. Talk about why it is important that she has the power she does.

[#0086 11:22:23 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I think your use of Gwynne's personal journey in architecture was a good means of mapping out an architeture's schooling and journey in the field.

[#0087 11:22:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
goo duse of quotes and good job on spreading them out throught out the paper instead of having all the quotes in one section and none in another section. ur sources also helped out support ur paper and backed up ur statements. u had a good intro, which made me keep reaing ur paper until the end

[#0088 11:17:14 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
Kira - I also thin you need to focus less on Gwynne and talk about what you feel your level of authority is. I do you plan on continuing gaining authority, and why?

[#0089 11:22:49 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I agree with Max, you should go into more detail about courses one has to take to become an architect.

[#0090 11:13:20 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kira Melville:
her undergrad was in University of Washington in St. Louis. Then she went to Japan for a few years... then came back to MIT for her grad. Maybe I have to make that more clear in the paper. Thanks

[#0091 11:20:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Ashleigh Doud:
your paper was well quoted

[#0092 12:24:08 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I like the questions you raised in paragrah 6, maybe you should expand on that, how to answer them , what to answer them

[#0093 11:20:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
Brent's paper is next: He wants to know if he has made adequate explanations of time period and terms.

[#0094 11:24:21 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
I think you could do a better job of describing exactly what the ARE's are and what they mean for an architechs. You also do a good job of telling how you gained authority through experience. It cleary shows how you got into it.

[#0095 11:23:30 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
i think gwynne was ur best source since he was ur mentor and what not

[#0096 11:14:00 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
I agree with Dean, I liked how you began to discuss on Ms. Darden but some more information on her in the paper wouldn't hurt.

[#0097 11:25:45 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
brent, i liked your paper because you didnt have to know too much about the samurai to understand the paper. the facts were also very intresting because i had no idea that anyone had misled the west on the ways of the samurai. I would conisder hurst your best authority because he understands what a samurai really is and can refute Nitobe.

[#0098 11:21:14 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
Time period and terms were okay but your paper just seems real jumbled you just need to bring it all together coherently

[#0099 11:22:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
brent,

i think that you did a fair job explaining everything i also believe that you did a good job with quoting in the second paragraph.

[#0100 11:29:11 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
perhaps define the terms better for the audience, relate it to the current times as best you can. for the most part, the japanese terms will scare off many english speakers.

[#0101 11:21:53 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
The quotes were okay but could use a little work on the flow.

[#0102 11:23:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
Yes the time periods and terms are explained well.

[#0103 11:22:42 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
Michael,

I know. I plan to do that on my next draft, along with adding in what I put down in my notes.

[#0104 11:22:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
Brent,

the samurai are not really my thing, but you made it interesting. You could go into a little more depth as to what the fuedal japanese culture was like. Even though the samurai were not from then, the still borrowed from their culture

[#0105 11:23:07 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
The paper did not seem to flow too well, and it was a little jumbled, but not too bad.

[#0106 11:25:19 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Brent I found your paper very interesting. In the second paragraph you assume for your audience and in my writing experience I have been told that you should never assume for the audience. So you might want to look into modifying that.

[#0107 11:22:51 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
In paragraph 2 you had good usage of quotes, but i think you should explain what Tokugawa Shogorate; you never really gave any detail to what it is.

[#0108 11:27:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
i agree with mike it did seem a little jumbled, but with a little bit of work the flow would be a lot better

[#0109 11:23:59 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
I think your conclusion could use a little more developement

[#0110 11:26:05 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
ur topic was very interesting but i really didnt understand ur paper. maybe its just me. u could explain more fully what a samuria is and what the code of honor is and what not.

[#0111 11:27:12 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
You did a good job of defining the terms, and giving the background info. But, you could define things a little better that you only mention, for example the ritual suicide. Because I've heard of it, but not sure if what I know is right. I have only seen it in the movies.

[#0112 11:30:22 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
I think this paper could be better, but for a second draft it is moving along nicely

[#0113 12:27:19 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I feel Nitboe Inazo is your best authority since he is base on which you are explaining bushido

[#0114 11:23:51 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
*cough* this would have been a lot easier and a lot more helpful to you if the paper had been anywhere near the adequate size *cough* but from what I could see the terms and information you had looks good and doesnt look like it should be what you're worried about. One thing you might want to address is the fact that you didn't use the word authority ONCE except for in your title. Good luck revising...

[#0115 11:23:48 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Hurst is you r only authority I saw in your paper, try to add more, but Hurst give you a lot of info to work with.

[#0116 11:23:14 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I really like the whole idea of a code of honor. I just think you may have a really hard time to defining a code because each persons is different.

[#0117 11:23:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
I agree with charles. Work on bringing everything together for the conclusion

[#0118 11:27:29 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
I liked your paper, just because i love the Samurai, other than that your paper bounced around alot, coving every topic under the sun but not in detail, maybe you need to stick with a few things and talk in depth about that, the ending was alittle bit of a drop off it just ends

[#0119 11:26:43 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I found it very interesting how the Samauri never coined the term Bushido themselves, rather a person that had lived during their time period did.

[#0120 11:24:16 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Your topic seems somewhat interesting and i would like to know more about the Samurai.

[#0121 11:21:21 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
you described your terms well for the average person to understand. However im not sure i understood what your trying to gain authority on! You seemed to talk about samurais and concentrated a little too much on Nitobe Inazo. You left out some time periods and cited that you would put them in later, therefore I cannot comment on that.

[#0122 11:23:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
Kevin is right your paper just stopped.

[#0123 11:24:56 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
Can you confirm your facts with another source

[#0124 11:17:44 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Brent,

I'm glad you stuck with your topic--very interesting information. I would definitely like to see you explain bushido more fully. How was it practiced before Nitobe redefined it (without even knowing he was redefining)? How exactly are people to practice the seven values? How does one live up to these?

What would be fun is to discuss a bit what one of the movies was like and to paint a picture based on this and then to paint a picture based on the original terms.

[#0125 12:28:47 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
Your right William, Hurst is, may it should lean to Nitobe more or other sources

[#0126 11:24:55 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
A possible title.."Service, chivalry, Samurai." Just a thought. Trying to bring the police, knights and the samurai together from the opening paragraph.

[#0127 11:27:56 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
i think nitobe was ur best source since u had more on ehim than any other source

[#0128 11:27:59 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I also found it very interesting how you connected with the audience in your introduction and mentioned "warrior's" in their own light. It relates the concept of a warrior of the past to the definition of a warrior of the present.

[#0129 11:18:43 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
As i told you earlier i liked your paper and felt that due to its uniqueness it adds some more interest on the readers part. Even though you said that it is hard to find information on the earlier forms of bushido, you still might want to compare and contrasts between the ealier Bushido, the latter bushido, and chivalry which more students understand because they went through brit. lit.

[#0130 11:25:05 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
Dean,

That's sounds like a really good title to me.

[#0131 11:21:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Hurst was probably your best source, he seemed the most knowledgable on the subject. Though you did a good job defining all of your terms, something that bothered me about your paper was the way you introduced some of your quotes. You repeated the word "was" on one and some of the others i had to re-read. Just check for minor stuff like that. Easy fixes. I learned a lot about samurais from your paper that i didnt know myself. I dont know if you were looking for an opinion on whether or not you should expand the differences between the samurai code and the knights chivalry code, but my input would be to cut it entirely. The last thing you need is for two codes in your paper to be explained because people will mix them up recalling the paper later. I really enjoyed your paper. Perhaps a title could be something like "Way of the Warrior" ?

[#0132 11:26:18 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
How about Rise to/of Honor for a title

[#0133 11:29:27 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
MAybe you can give more information on what it was like to be a samurai, or more sence orented detail

[#0134 11:25:54 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
i know that you had a hard time finding information. The sources that you cited fit in well with the paper

[#0135 11:32:59 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
explain more detail of the bushido code itself

[#0136 11:29:03 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Yea I agree with Brent. How did the Bushido train or what were their missions or what did they do day to day. How did they interact with say their families or even with one another?

[#0137 11:19:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kira Melville:
I did not find the question to be helpfull to your paper. On the second page, the places where the 'timeline/dates' should have been, you said that they will be added in a later draft (more or less) Idid, however, think that the terms were helpfull. The placement of the terms were also in good corrispondence to what you were talking about. MOst of yuor sentences were choppy, and The title, I dod not know what to suggest. I felt that the paper was not ready for the second draft due date. Yet.... you did have a few good qotations in your paper. I would try to spend more time on this and make sure that the paper has all the info for the next draft. I would like to know a little bit more for your point of view... aka your authority as well

[#0138 11:26:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
Next is Chad's paper. He wants to know if his paper is clear and if his intentions are well defined.

[#0139 11:29:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
you could go into the bushido code more.

[#0140 11:31:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
Chad, there are not any quotes in your paper. The authorities you stated had no quotes, you only introduced them briefly, they almost sound like the same person. Maybe you should develop these people in the third paragraph to have more of a personalitiy. These people may also be great people to interview because they seem like they could be personal friends of yours and eaisly accessable. the paper could be a whole lot more intresting if it just had a little bit less of a list format and more of a story and discriptive format. Overall, i think you have great material and can turn the paper into a great report.

[#0141 11:27:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
no quotes at all

[#0142 11:27:19 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
Chad,

You seem to know a lot on civil engineering, but it seemed that you constantly jumped from point a to point b to point c.

[#0143 12:31:31 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
yeah I noticed that, but that can be easliy fixed since you do have sources

[#0144 11:27:34 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I agree with Dean you seem to know your stuff but you have not quotes or sources to back you up and you jump around a lot.

[#0145 11:30:48 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Yes Chad I found your paper very clear. Like Matt said I did not find any qoutation's in your paper which surprised me. I think your introduction could of been stronger, it seemed rushed or hurried. A well defined introduction draws in the reader and outlines your paper.

[#0146 11:28:03 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
You said that you worked as a CAD tech. What do you do. What does that involve. Talk more about the professionals that you know personally

[#0147 11:28:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
You had a lot of info on civil engineering, too much perhaps that I found many things that could be taken out to make the paper more interesting.

[#0148 11:21:23 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
Yeah..come on Chad add some quotes... they will complement the sources you already have.

[#0149 11:28:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Chad, your paper was easy to follow, read, and understand; but your conclusion seems to be repeating, you might want to consider revising that.

[#0150 11:35:18 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
weave quotes into your paper, and cite sources of information. try to focus when writing your paper and maintain the audience's attention

[#0151 11:28:51 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Ashleigh Doud:
You have alot of information and description in your paper, but you seem to be lacking quotes from any of your sources

[#0152 11:28:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
YEah, you need quotes.

[#0153 11:24:55 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
You pushed upon my biggest peeve when you wrote this paper. You wrote it in the tone as if you were speaking to me and it wasnt formal enough for me. Also... not one quote. And lastly, you need to work on which words need to be capitalized and which do not, because i found way to many.

[#0154 11:29:49 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
I think that the paper is written good with but it kinda skipped around from point to point

[#0155 11:28:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
does the word "engineer" need to be capitalized any time it is used?

[#0156 11:29:07 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
You should go into more detail about what a Professional Engineer is/does.

[#0157 11:31:53 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
i didnt read anyquotes from the source u used. it seems u know all about civil engineering. u could work on ur transition from one idea to another. i agree with dean, jumping around a lot and what not.

[#0158 11:29:18 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
Chad,

Your paper flowed very well, and your ideas were very well pronounced, but where are your quotes? Also, the conclusion needs a bit of refinement. You kinda stopped cold. Work it towards a more natural finish.

[#0159 11:32:45 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
Chad,

your paper was interesting, and i enjoyed it because it is in my field of study, but you need to put atleast a quote or two in your paper, other than that your point comes across very easily, it is smooth and easy to understand, jus twork on getting some more quotes in there

[#0160 11:30:10 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
Yes you do need quotes

[#0161 12:33:00 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
It was informative and interesting, its just the authority side of the paper needs to be developed a bit more.

[#0162 11:26:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
Chad - Your paper was very clear, and I think you are working from idea to idea just fine. To me the sixth paragraph was a little repetative, you might want to combine your sixth and seventh paragraphs and switch that with your last paragraph, then see how your paper flows.

[#0163 11:32:08 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I definetly think your authorities shine in your paper, Massey and Wilgus definetly seem like they have the necc. credentials in the field of civil engineering. Personally I was always confused on what EXACTLY a civil engineer did so I thought you did a good job of explaining it and the tasks they do day to day.

[#0164 11:25:53 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
i had a hard time following your paper because i was constantly distracted by typos, and improper grammer. i re-read it two times and i still dont know if you actually defined what a civil engineer does

[#0165 11:30:03 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
You need structure to the paper

[#0166 11:29:14 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
You also need to vary your sentence structure. It seemed like every other sentence in the third paragraph started with "He is" or "He was"

[#0167 11:29:42 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
You didn't have any quotes in your paper. What do other people have to say about civil engineering?

[#0168 11:23:22 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
I did like how you elaborated on how multiple members of you family had connection to your topic, this kept the paper informative from a personal perspective...and that i really enjoy.

[#0169 11:23:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Chad,

I thought you might want to break up the second paragraph into three paragraphs to help with the flow of the paper. One paragraph could more fully fill us in on your family's involvement in the field. Another could tell us about what being a CAD tech entails and a final one could focus on what your curriculum for your major classes entails.

You might then have to move a few things to work with this change, but it will give us a lot of information that you already know up front.

[#0170 11:37:10 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
go into more detail about civil engineering, what would one need to take in highschool to prepare themselves for a civil engineering major?

[#0171 12:34:31 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
It would complement the paper if you quoted David Massey or Jim Wilgus, since they are personal sources

[#0172 11:33:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Towards the end of your paper I feel like you branched offf and told us the credentials of a engieer period. Personally I thought you should of told us what it takes specifically for a person seeking a civil engineering degree to accomplish.

[#0173 11:31:05 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Basically, the only authorities you mention were the engineers you work with, since land development is a part of your family history, maybe put some of your family members as authorities.

[#0174 11:27:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Also, please note the difference in the word "were" and "where". Several times you missed that

[#0175 11:34:01 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
add more quotes to help support ur topic and back up any statemtnet u used. u can go into detail about ur topic like u can tell what it is and what they do and what not.

[#0176 11:35:11 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
You should add quotes from your sources because there were none in the paper. You could also explain exactly what CAD is because you mention that you work with it but you do not say exactly what it is. You could also go into more detail about the different branches of civil engineering. You do a good job of telling how you got into civil engineering and what you know about it know.

[#0177 11:34:01 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I liek how you showed a personal side of being and engineer and their interaction with potential clients and the way they have to go about it.

[#0178 11:35:52 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
I think it was a good paper

[Message #179]

i agree with matt

[#0179 11:24:42 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
As a number of students are saying, you currently don't have research incorporated into the paper. Can you get an interview with either David Massey or Jim Wilgus? Who are the national authorities on land development? How do you define this term?

[#0180 11:31:49 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
There were some parts in your paper where I was like, "what is he talking about?" Like... in the sentance "The Engineers back then didn't have factor in untilities, and hundred year storm." What "hundred year storms" have we had... ever? Perhaps chose a term like "environmental factors." I also think that the part where you talk about "evil engineers" is either misplaced (don't put it right before your conclusion... work it in somewhere else in your paper without making it such a huge mood change) or irrelevant altogether. You also need to do research (no citations... not good!) and at least support that very very bold statement at the end of your paper "To be an authority you need to be a Professional Engineer, and have worked in that area for at least ten years."

[#0181 11:34:53 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I agree with William, you did mention that you had family that was familar with the field so I would definetly be interested in hearing more about that.

[#0182 11:32:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
Jackie wants some title suggestions and to know if her intro paragraph needs work.

[#0183 11:25:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kira Melville:
Some of the ideas were jumbled, it was almost like you were jumping around the page from topic to concept without the good transition sentences. I would like to suggest that yuo give us the name of the firm you work for... maybe how you got the job. Also, the school that Massey attended. Some of your examples need to be more expressed and maybe more illistrated as well. More about the programs.. I know land surveyers use a program ArchGIS, does your firm use that? If so... incorporate this.I would like to see QUOTES. The stat you have ..."but for every bad Engineer it seems like there is two good Engineers," where did this come from? Even if it is not word for word, stats have to be cited. Need a better conclusion to wrap up your Ideas.

[#0184 11:26:11 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
Other questions you may want to elaborate on are:

What exactly does it take to become a full authority in your topic?

Do you consider yourself an authority? If not how much futherdo you have to go till becoming one?

[#0185 11:33:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
Very good paper in my opinion

[#0186 11:33:45 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
"A Woman in the Field: Architecture" could be your titel, just a suggestion.

[#0187 11:38:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
Jake, i liked where you incorporated the quote from adams about hte profession being a white male's profession, it seems like many women are going into architecture now including you

[#0188 11:33:17 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I think the intro is really good. You clearly define an architect and express your reason for wanting to become one.

[#0189 11:38:16 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
jackie** im sorry

[#0190 11:34:43 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
jackie

i think your title should be "Authority on Pain and Agony." i also thought that your conclusion was alright.

[#0191 11:36:36 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Sorry I dont have any title suggestions but I did like your definition of architects. From what I know and didnt know about architects I think it captured their role in its entirety.

[#0192 11:30:19 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
i like william's suggestion for a title

[#0193 11:34:04 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
Jackie,

you seem passionate about what you want to do. The introduction, i thought was fine. You talked about Maya Lin and how hard it is to become a woman achitech. You title could incorporate some of those ideas

[#0194 11:41:09 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
I like the way the intro flows, it does not need any work done to it.

[#0195 11:34:43 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
me 2

[#0196 12:38:10 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
titile suggestion "Blue print to Authority"

[#0197 11:27:34 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
Me 3

[#0198 11:30:51 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
i was just about to type out how you should say somethng about like "jackie: female architect" but his sounds better

[#0199 11:34:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
I liked the fact that it was eaily read, the conclusion is done well, I don't think you had a problem there.

[#0200 11:35:34 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
I think to intro is done well and it is very informative.

[#0201 11:37:13 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I definetly have run into CAD so I know about the software and how architects have kinda evolved from just paper and pencil.

[#0202 11:34:12 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I like thane's title suggestion

[#0203 11:41:45 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
your paper could use more quotes to show where you got information from sources

[#0204 11:39:17 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
i like how many facts were incorporated into the draft. It gave it a very informative feel and became very intresting

[#0205 11:35:23 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
i mean for williams title

[#0206 11:28:18 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Jackie,

I thought you could play off of "drawing" or "drafting" for the title: Drawing on Authority or Drafting New Authority to Become an Architect.

[#0207 11:36:11 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
Yes, thane's idea is good

[#0208 11:39:32 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
yea, thane's idea for a title was great

[#0209 11:28:21 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
Thane nice title. I like that one you should use it Jackie

[#0210 11:31:33 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
This paper had a very good flow to it, i like the paragraph on your admiration of Maya Lin

[#0211 11:35:22 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
You should explain more on why architecture is known as the "white man's profession" and what you did in your job as an intern.

[#0212 11:39:02 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
I think the intro really pulls you in, its very good, and a title sugestion i thing thane came up with a good one

[#0213 11:38:23 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
i dont see anyproblem with ur intro. it was good and it caught my attention when i read it. good job with ur quotes as well. they helped suppport ur statemtents and they were spread out throughout the paper.

[#0214 11:28:46 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Jason,

I liked the paragraph on Maya Lin as well.

[#0215 11:35:49 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
In your conclusion, you mention the architectural language, but you don't elaborate. could you provide examples? The flow is very nice, and seems very logically structured.Very well done.

[#0216 11:35:49 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
I actually liked your intro but think that your conclusion could use a little work... it just sort of stops. This paper is pretty good and besides some spelling/grammatical/format errors, you look like you're in good shape. Good luck revising.

[#0217 11:42:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
I think that you could call it Architecture: 96 Hours with no sleep and still truckin'

[#0218 11:36:14 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
Your quotes, i thought, fit the paper very well.

[#0219 11:38:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I defintly how you tie in yourself and other women in the architecture world. It gave me some insight on how yet this is another male dominated field where women have to prove themselves but like in many fields there are women who definetly earn their respect and are in teh big leagues.

[#0220 12:40:01 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I found you experince with Rick LaRosa on a project interesting, the design process and client interaction

[#0221 11:43:18 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
or something like: Redbull: My anti-drug

[#0222 11:35:55 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
You did a good job with quote flow and the quotes themselves are good but try to tell us who you're citing

[#0223 11:36:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
I agree with Daniel, the quotes fit in very well.

[#0224 11:36:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
There was good quote usage in paragraph 3, they transition well I thought. the occupational handbook seemed to give you a lot of info and seemed to be your best source.

[#0225 11:37:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
i also think that you did a good job incorporating quotes in your paper

[#0226 11:40:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
Mybe talk alittle about the struggle that Lin went through to get to where she is in the world today

[#0227 11:41:17 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
the quotes were good, i like how well your paper flowed with all of the information in it

[#0228 11:39:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I definetly liked your paper as a whole but I found your conclusion rushed and well I didn''t really see a conclusion until your end sentence that tried to take on the role of wrapping everything in your paper, but your paper flowed well and was very informative.

[#0229 11:37:15 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
Yeah. and what is OOH? You cite it a lot and I have no idea what it is.

[#0230 11:36:48 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I really like the fact that you incorperated your experience but I suggest that you elaborate more on that. Tell us about one project you from start to finish and explain the steps a bit more.

[#0231 11:41:44 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
yea, i cand find it in the works cited either

[#0232 11:37:34 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
my idea for a conclusion would have to be something involving the school and prejudice twoards women. Bring what you talked about earlier and try to sum it all up. Hitting the high points

[#0233 11:41:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
The introduction paragraph does a good job of defining what an architech is and why you became interested in it. You also did a good job of describing terms like CAD technology. You could also add if you plan on becoming liscensed because it was not in there.

[#0234 11:31:22 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Jackie,

Yes, your conclusion could use a little work: why not cut the last line and instead be more bold? Make another paragraph that states your plans: "In 200? I plan on graduating from SPSU and....what's next? MA work? Work for a large or small firm? What's your vision :-)

[#0235 11:37:47 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I would be kinda wary about quoting movies unless you are absolutely sure they got their information from a good source because Hollywood is known to screw up the facts

[#0236 11:40:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I agree with Thane, your experience gave some insight on what you have done with architecture thus far.

[#0237 11:38:33 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
Also, you occasionally launch straigh into a quote without introducing it. Maybe you could try to work on that a bit?

[#0238 11:38:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
Zakiya wants to know if she went into enough detail to make her paper clear, and where you should add more details and descriptions.

[#0239 11:31:45 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kira Melville:
First, to address the question, the conclusion needs some work. I would really try to incorporate the knowledge of the classes we take in intro and in our studio classes. This will also help out on the scatered quotes. You need to incorporate more personal conversations.. maybe.. with the professors. Just go and ask questions. This will help you a lot. Your mentor that graduated from SCAD... you can tell us what that program entails and how is it diffrent to what yuo will be going through. I would also llike to suggest that yuo break the paragraphs down to smaller idea sections. This will help you become more focused. With this, you can add more ideas and bring your paper to really good direct points. Who is Rick? Maybe more info on this person as well. I have more suggestions.. just refer back.

[#0240 11:39:18 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Ashleigh Doud:
title should involve something to do with you being a woman in the field of architecture which is very few

[#0241 11:43:19 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
Zakiya, you had an exellent introduction to your paper and you kept very consistant with the imagery though out your paper. i like all of the descriptive details and it keeps the paper very clear.

[#0242 11:32:20 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
Expanding on the whole thing of architecture being a white mans profession show some more minority architectects that have received success in thier field. I did like how you discussed Mya Lynn. I really like her architecture and felt that by putting her in your paper many people will understand architecture as an art better due to the fac that she designed the Vietnam memorial. One more quote from Mya would be something you might consider adding to your paper.

[#0243 11:40:13 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
i think that you did a alright job adding details in the paper. im not really sure where you should go to add some in though

[#0244 11:46:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
There's enough detail to support your topic, but not too much to distract the reader.

[#0245 11:39:13 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
You could go into more detail about what it is you plan to design. That was a little unclear

[#0246 12:43:35 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I agree with matt on the imagery

[#0247 11:39:48 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
You did a good job giving us detail. one of the quotes were extremely long. Try to give us more of what you think and feel about design.

[#0248 11:40:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
There is enough, maybe too much detail in your paper which causes the reader to get lost in all the words; paragraph 3 and 4 are a little too wordy, break them down and explain them more thoroghly.

[#0249 11:44:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
do that thing we did in class w/ the paragraphs

[#0250 11:44:47 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
eleborate

[#0251 11:47:22 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
I found this paper to be interesting to read.

[#0252 11:41:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
The paper is very informative and descriptive throughout,

[#0253 11:40:09 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
Who or what is Vituvius? Sounds like they know what they're talking about but who the heck is it?

[#0254 11:40:47 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Paragraph 2 had good usage of sources and I like the introduction; it sets up the paper well.

[#0255 11:43:22 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I agree with Michael your title maybe needed to direct more towards architectural design because it was misleading because I thought you were going to go into designs in general.

[#0256 11:40:53 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
I agree with Erik. You actually look like you're in good shape but you ramble a little sometimes. You need to make sure that you are keeping on topic and don't let yourself wander.

[#0257 11:47:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
expanding your paper would be my only real suggestion

[#0258 11:40:36 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
Tell us about your own authority..what have you done in the field?

[#0259 11:41:17 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
yes, very interesting to read

[#0260 12:44:59 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I liked how to referenced architecture to philosophy like when you talked about John Ruskin and also Vituvius

[#0261 11:42:12 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
you also used your sources well

[#0262 11:41:22 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
I agree with William. Try to break them up a bit. Also, introduce your sources so we know who they are and why they are authorities.

[#0263 11:42:12 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
i would also like to know alittle about your authority

[#0264 11:41:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Lacayo seems to be the best authority because they seem to supply a lot of material and seems interesting.

[#0265 11:42:01 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Ashleigh Doud:
you did a good job incorperating some quotes in there and maybe you could add a few more personal experiences to show some examples

[#0266 12:45:32 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
title suggestion "Designing Authority"

[#0267 11:42:46 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
add some about your authority

[#0268 11:41:24 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
You intro was good but seemed a little bit confusing. You jumped around telling about how different people express themselves and it was difficult to see your point through all that. I had a hard time telling which was your way of expression

[#0269 11:35:04 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Zakiya,

Your passion for design really comes through. What about more information about how this became your passion? You could also add more background about how architects use information about historic buildings: are they just custodians or do they let the design of past buildings influence their work today?

[#0270 11:45:47 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
You have some quotes that are very long, like the one that is its own paragraph. I think you need to better describe the quotes because it is a long quote, therefore it requires more explaination.

[#0271 11:45:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
I think you did a good job with the intro it really pulls the reader in, the paper was easy to follow, and interesting to read, maybe tell alittle more about your authority on the subject

[#0272 11:41:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
thane's idea for a title sounds good

[#0273 11:35:24 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Matt,

What should she elaborate on?

[#0274 11:45:05 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I definetly found you had an abundance of quotations but maybe a little too much. I found you lacking original sentences and thougts from you. LIke maybe you should comment or make a synopsis on the quotations you used in your paper.

[#0275 11:39:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
Zakiya - I think your introduction was well written, it definitley pulled me in to read the rest of your paper. You decribed in enough detail for the average reader to understand, however i was a little confused about your third paragraph because it didnt seem to flow with the other aspects of your paper. Maybe "Design" in itself is a little to broad of a topic, narrow it down more to architecture, and then one particular aspect of architecture.

[#0276 11:42:13 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I agree thane is just full of good titles today

[#0277 11:39:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Yay for Zakiya. I really enjoyed your paper. Your "voice" is very distinct and i like how you put everything. One thing i would like to say is that becaues of how you introduced the paper... saying "im going to talk about so and so" you seemed to fall into the standard intro, backup paragraphs, conclusion type of paper. I just wish youd take a chance and think outside of that box to type a paper. I like thanes idea for a title as well. Overall, you did a good job with the paper and it gave me a different perpective on the "design" in architecture.

[#0278 11:47:18 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
the paragraphs that william was talking about, i was just suggesting a method for doing it w/ the paragraphs from class

[#0279 12:46:52 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
Talk more about your own authority it would round out the paper

[#0280 11:36:14 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
I agree with Craig, some specific direction towards architecture design would help create a more narrowed view of design and its influence through architecture.

[#0281 11:47:47 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
i thought it was actually very well thought out

[#0282 11:46:22 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
u r paper was interesting to read. ur quotes were well incorporated. ur intro pulled the reader in so it was a very good intro. i enjoyed reading ur paper.

[#0283 11:46:17 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I think your overall description of design in your introduction was fascinating but since you go into architectural design specifiacally again I think your title needs to show that.

[#0284 11:44:04 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
I agree with Thane. What is your own authority on the subject? How did you get interested in this topic?

[#0285 11:46:37 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
You did do a good job of blending your quotations!

[#0286 11:37:24 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Zakiya,

You hit mainly the inspiring parts of authority--what about the grunt work? How do you get the experience and education so you can inspire everyone?

[#0287 11:48:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
i agree w/ craig, it doesnt seem like they are in a list

[#0288 11:44:36 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
Erik's paper is next. He wants title suggestions and thoughts on his intro paragraph.

[#0289 11:37:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
I do think that you need to expand more by adding both personal and professional authorities to you paper

[#0290 11:37:45 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kira Melville:
The 'detail' was not all that descriptive, The sentences were very choppy and very hard to follow. It seems that the topic could be researched more and the paper can really be something good in more time was spent into it. I do think she is on a track, but the right one is when you jump on the train. Do not sit there watching. You do have very good quotes, but it seems that you do not introduce them well. You can fix this by adding good transition sentences and some examples from the intro calss and studio. More elaboration with a few deatils on the first page (refer to my mark-ups) Second page, there are a few fragments that could be changes quite easily. The 'conclusion' which I feel does not do any justice to this paper is a run-on. You also have a cite proplem that I addressed in the mark-up. More time will imporve your paper.

[#0291 11:44:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
Erik,

I really enjoyed you introduction. The imagery of the tiger chained to a tree was perfect.

[#0292 11:45:21 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
The imagery was a great touch. It really pulled me in!

[#0293 11:48:03 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Haha sorry buddy I dont have any title suggestions but I definetly think you can get creative with swimming.

[#0294 11:52:39 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
you gave a great imagery of swimming, it seems to be a big passion for you

[#0295 11:46:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
erik,

i think that you did a good job with the opening. it was interesting and keep my attention. i also liked it. i think that you did a good job using quotes on your second page.

[#0296 11:50:11 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
Erik, your paper seemed very full of facts and i believe DeMott is your main authority, but the facts seem to be strung togeather, it seems that you dont space them out enough, maybe break them apart with your thoughts on the quotes themselves, do you agree 100% or what parts do you agree with?

[#0297 11:42:13 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Eric,

The introduction of your paper was very well written, but i do think that it tended to drag on a little long.

[#0298 11:45:24 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
Erik,

Your first two paragraphs were awesome. You did a really good job of setting the scene. The imagery was really good.

[#0299 12:49:44 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
Excellent job on the imagery in the first part, I thought I was there and I can't even swim!!

[#0300 11:46:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
Great paper u have here. You took a sport which i find to be very boring and you wrote a paper that interested me very much.

[#0301 11:49:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
The introduction was very good because it makes you feel like your actually there and are experiencing everthing.

[#0302 11:50:31 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
yes, great imagery in the first few paragraphs

[#0303 11:48:53 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I definetly liked the visual you presented in your first paragraph. It put me into your position and into the "crowd" as a spectator.

[#0304 11:46:27 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
I think that your intro paragraph was actually very good. I loved the image of the tiger and it made me want to read the rest of the paper. Good job!

[#0305 11:53:13 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
I think you should call your paper "Sink or Swim"

[#0306 11:46:11 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
i would have to say that your souce with the most authority would be your coach. he had to be doing something right for the team to do as well as they did

[#0307 11:47:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
Your intro is well written and yes it displays imagery

[#0308 11:47:13 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
i really did like imagry it made me feel like i was there

[#0309 11:42:49 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Sorry to hear about your coach. btw. that was sad.

[#0310 11:50:52 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
i like how you described everything down to the black boxes in your paper

[#0311 11:46:42 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
I like that Max

[#0312 11:49:17 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I liked how you presented and defined swimming terms that i definetly did not know about.

[#0313 11:44:01 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
Erik - Your introduction was written well and very descriptive. I liked how began you paper and painted us, thre readers, a mental picture of what this paper is about. The introduction pulles me in to want to read more about competatitve swimmers. Maybe your title could be "Quick Off the Block"

[#0314 11:47:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
What does it mean to have an authority? Becoming a good swimmer?

[#0315 11:40:14 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
I think a good title would be something alond the lines of Living between the Ropes...or floaties, or whatever the lanes are called.

[#0316 11:46:58 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
Max's title doesn't sound bad

[#0317 11:54:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
break a few of the paragraphs down to expand your paper

[#0318 11:49:54 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I like how you brought out that its not all about winning in this sport and ti shouldnt be in any sport, it was a nice connection with the reader.

[#0319 11:47:00 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
It's really cool how you quoted your high school coach. That bond with a coach is something a lot of people can relate to and helps keep interest

[#0320 11:51:56 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
it seems like there is a lot more to swimming than just swimming, it may also take a lot of knowledge to become an authority on swimming

[#0321 11:47:53 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
Also, I like how you described your own involvement in the sport and the rewards you get from doing it. Your passion for the subject really shows.

[#0322 11:51:36 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
I think your intro is very good pulls your attenting, but maybe you want to continue with it and give maybe a detail discription of the swimmers in the water. your paper was very good it kept me into it from the moment i picked it up

[#0323 12:51:56 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I like the results swimming has for different people as you showed when you quoted Coach DeMoot and Jeff Float

[#0324 11:50:47 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I definetly think your expericne with an Olympiad is awesome and being trained by one would definetly set you ahead in your sport.

[#0325 11:48:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
that's cool robert..."living between the floaties"

[#0326 11:41:24 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Erik,

I really liked your intro. It was interesting and gives your readers a good chance to see the moment that swimmers live for--the race.

I wouldn't mind knowing all the grunt work that gets the win. Swimming is a tough sport. Maybe you could tell us what your coach or other famous coaches thought were especially important training techniques.

[#0327 11:47:46 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I agree with Craig. I like the way you emphasized it's not all about winning and loseing makes you push yourself harder

[#0328 11:44:45 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
As for quotes and transition, i think that you did an excellent job with it all. In your fourth paragraph, did you mean that "this is quite UNacceptable?" because that sentence threw me off... contradicted yourself a bit or something.

[#0329 11:52:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
You did a good job of telling the different types of swimming styles and how each is done.

[#0330 11:51:46 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
i liked reading ur paper. it was very easy to read and had enough details to keep the reader up to speed. ur paper flowed very well and it made me creat an image where it was me in that story. i liked the quote where it says swimmers dont have to win in order to be happy. that shows good sportsmanship and maturity. unlike any other sport u want to win in order to be happy and what not. i think ur high school coach would be ur best source since he was ur coach. all ur quotes supported ur paper. it was a very good paper and i enjoyed reading it.

[#0331 12:52:56 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
Was anyone else shocked that you can sweat in water or is it just me?

[#0332 11:53:29 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
the way you describe swimming is a lot like the way we have heard running described in the past

[#0333 11:42:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
Your introduction was great and immediatley caught my attention. I also like how you used both personal and professional authorities on your topic, that adds a substantial amount of weight to your paper.

[#0334 11:51:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Your experience as a leader and experience over the years would def. make you an authority in this field.

[#0335 11:45:56 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Yes Thane,i was kinda surprised at that as well.

[#0336 11:42:46 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Dean,

or "Conquering the Pool" King of the Pool? Hmmm....

[#0337 11:56:31 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
I never really thought swimming was this competitive of a sport

[#0338 11:46:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Who knew that i could sweat in water

[#0339 11:52:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
there was no problem with ur intro. it pulled me in and made me creat that image in my head thinking it was me in the arena.

[#0340 11:53:32 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
"One meter at a time", and i liked the one before "sink or swim" that was good

[#0341 11:52:41 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Haha actually I find it funny that you can sweat in the water Thane and yea that was shocking

[#0342 11:43:12 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
No, Thane. Been there, done that!

[#0343 12:54:07 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
Jason you can probably swim then, I can't

[#0344 11:43:34 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
I was also shocked Thane...Sweating and swimming don't really seem like an obvious combination

[#0345 11:43:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Kevin,

good ones!

[#0346 11:49:58 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
awww

[#0347 11:43:50 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kira Melville:
I really loved this intro. It captured me very well. I would suggest "Swimming: Not Just a Sport" as the title. Now, THAT IS a suggestion. I do not know if it is a good one at that, but you can run with it. One the second paragraph, the second and third sentences need to have some kind of transition sentence. I really like all of the description, and maybe where it could use something else.. remember... you can describe your experences. Like the two hours old clornie water was as still as... something that would really make this paper pop!! I would also change the second sentence in the 5TH paragraph to something along the lines as...:[ I was taught how to swim even before O could walk. ] This is another suggestion. I think it would flow better. You have some fragments. But over all the quotes are GREAT!!

[#0348 11:51:04 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
Matt: facts are clear and well incorporated quotes

[#0349 11:51:27 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
You incorporated your one and only quote well

[#0350 11:44:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
Yes one and only quote

[#0351 11:51:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
its true

[#0352 11:53:56 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
lol daniel

[#0353 11:52:21 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
Matt,

i thought that your facts where pretty clear.

[#0354 11:52:02 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Ashleigh Doud:
The opening is very visual and you used great words of imagery... I feel like i am actually there... awesome job with that

[#0355 11:58:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
add more quotes to your paper, try to gather information from books on chess openers

[#0356 11:51:12 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
Matt,

Holy crap dude. Your paper was awesome. Daniel does have a good point you could use more quotes but your facts are pretty clear.

[#0357 12:55:32 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I was very clear but you could explain the rating system

[#0358 11:56:06 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
there are quotes in there, i just havent got all the info on the topics to cite the sources yet

[#0359 11:54:26 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Oh wow you made the game of chest intense in that first paragraph buddy.

[#0360 11:52:20 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
but i only have one as well, so dont get too mad at him for only having 1

[#0361 11:58:50 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
vivid descriptions of chess though

[#0362 11:52:59 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
The only quote you have is incorporated nicely

[#0363 11:48:32 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
The only thing that i was confused on, was your "rating". Your rating went over 1400... is that like.. point value? or rank in the world? Is Karpov rated like .. 1? or 240000? please explain

[#0364 11:52:29 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Matt, paragraph 2 has good usage of quotes and souces, they were easily read and understood. This paper was easy to follw, had an ease of reading considering how complex chess can be.

[#0365 12:56:19 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I agree with Craig, I like the intro

[#0366 11:52:21 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
matt,

I liked the intro, the intese tone that you used. I had no idea that chess originated from india. You need to find another souce to quote other than yourseld. I don't know what it would say. You learn from experience. but look for another source

[#0367 11:55:16 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
I would definetly imagine it takes real focus to be good at the game of chess.

[#0368 11:55:29 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
u had plenty of facts and they were very clear. chess is an interesting tpoic. u did have only one quote and u did a good job incorporating it into the paper. ur paper was interesting to read. i like to play chess. maybe we can go one on one. ill prolly get my butt kicked but who cares.

[#0369 11:53:33 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Chad Kastner:
i didnt know that you could get titles in playing chess that was kind of interesting

[#0370 11:53:00 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
yes. no quotes. BUT! This is my favorite paper I have read so far. I still can't believe that you made a paper about chess so interesting and fun to read. I really want to know why Fischer conceded to Karpov and if you can't find why... why do youthink he did? that's a really weird strategy... ya know?

[#0371 11:52:24 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
The intro was really great. Your descriptions really turn chess from a board game to a battlefield with only your stradegy to defend yourself

[#0372 11:52:43 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
I agree with Shelby this has been one of my favorites so far

[#0373 11:53:44 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Garabedian:
yea, why did he refuse to play the champion match

[#0374 11:54:21 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Charles Hollis:
maybe go more into depth on " your official rating"and what that is all about

[#0375 11:49:44 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Besides that, this paper was very well written. Ive played chess before, but im sure you could kill me in it because i am kinda fuzzy on the rules still, i always end in a stalemate. Heh.

[#0376 11:57:04 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kevin Hawlk:
I thought your paper was very interesting, chess is a amazing game, it all comes down to who has more brains, thats why i am not to good at it, but it did keep me entertained, maybe a few more quotes, or sight the ones you got

[#0377 12:00:25 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
I enjoyed seeing chess put in this light

[#0378 11:46:43 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Much more on titles and what the points mean: is 1400 great or awful? More points the better? Is there a top number?

[#0379 11:57:57 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Matt Eldridge:
thx shelby

[#0380 11:53:45 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
yeah charles. i said that too.

[#0381 11:53:46 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Brent Kosier:
Matt, Your intro was great, but you only seemed to have one source cited ino your paper. Do you have more sources you can quote? Also, maybe you can elaborate some on famous games or the players you mention.

[#0382 11:53:46 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
Eales seems to be the best authority because he supplies interesting facts about the history, it's amazing that the rules remained the same over such a long period of time.

[#0383 11:57:30 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
Your facts and quotes are clearly spelled out. For example you go into what the experience is like, the history, and the masters of chess. I think you should better describe what an official rating is because in the paper you said yours was a 1400, but I don't know what that means.

[#0384 11:53:56 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Shelby Rawles:
no prob. keep up the good work.

[#0385 11:56:38 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Riklon Zedkaia:
u could explain which piece is which and what their different moves are and what not. u can also tell how u win a game since most people dont know what a checkmate is.

[#0386 12:57:39 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
It was very interesting and easy to read, I actually enjoyed reading it

[#0387 11:56:30 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Craig Bingham:
Your quotation on how the game of chess came about was definetly mind bogoling becasue I never would of guessed it came out of India and you do mention how the names got changed during the Dark Ages which makes sense as to why that is misleading.

[#0388 11:53:31 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
Charles has a good idea. Go more into what it means to have an "Offical Rating" and how you go about improving your rating

[#0389 11:54:33 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
William Oliver:
You should explain more about Kasparov.

[#0390 11:54:17 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Dean Miller:
you might want to go into more detail about how you began to play chess

[#0391 11:47:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Robert Locarnini:
I loved how you introduced your topic in the opening paragraph. You took a topic that is generally considered boring (Sorry Matt) and added a higher level of interest for the reader. That was a very strong point in your paper.

[#0392 11:47:50 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
You have one main source. I would like to know more from other sources as well. Especially about Fischer and why he didn't play.

[#0393 11:58:40 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Daniel Morales:
You do a good job of getting the reader into the game, and making them feel like they are actually there.

[#0394 12:01:56 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Max Terry:
see if you can get an interview from a chess expert

[#0395 11:48:25 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Nancy Reichert:
Robert,

I agree--who knew the adrenaline pumps for chess :-)

[#0396 11:54:50 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Michael O'Neal:
Maybe try to get an interview with some the people you used to play against that still play competitively

[#0397 11:52:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jackie Panzica:
Matt - The portion in your paper about the history of chess is mostly a quote from Eales. I can't imagine you know nothing about chess because your paper shows it a true passion of yours. you did however conclude the quote well with a sentance that I feel backs up the quote. Also I'm going to add that I dont know a thing about chess and what is a 1400?...remember not everyone has played chess before even though you might think so!

[#0398 11:48:35 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Kira Melville:
I would like to start that the into should be an intro. I wouldn't change much... because it was/is a great strt. This really pulls you into the paper. But it goes too far to fast. You have a few run-ons that you can see in the mark-up... I would refer back to that. But the clarity... I WANT TO KNOW HOW TO RATE THE GAME OF CHESS!!!!! The times where you mention a score, you never tell us why it is important. I want to know this as a member of the audience!!More transition sentences will also help the flow of this paper. Some run-ons are also noted on the mark-up. Remember to refer! Good conclusion, but I would suggest that you tell me more about your personal authority level.

[#0399 12:59:18 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Thane Evans:
I think you played with one of those champions maybe you can mention that

[#0400 11:51:52 AM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Jason Lawya:
Have to say, never thought i could keep such a keen interest on a paper about a game like chess. But you sure did a good job doing it.

[#0401 12:06:34 PM, Friday, October 14, 2005]
Zakiya2 Crawford:
Matt you did great with portraying the whole competitive chess scene great intro.