MylinhPham<mylinhp1@uci.

edu>

SubmissionComment:MylinhPham,MidtermPortfolio,Fall2017Writing37
1message

LeahClaireKaminski<notifications@instructure.com> Sun,Nov19,2017at5:34PM
ReplyTo:LeahClaireKaminskiviaCanvasNotifications<reply+a4f794a8fb832f47db7e835506a6b16b7410e919
4407~16618170@notifications.canvaslms.com>
To:mylinhp1@uci.edu

LeahClaireKaminskijustmadeanewcommentonthesubmissionforMylinhPham
forMidtermPortfolio

My
PI: Some strong points, and you clearly understand your weaknesses. It would have
been nice to also show your strengths/improvements (e.g. show a piece of good
analysis). That would have pushed this even further.

RA:
The thesis is a bit long and actually too detailed (e.g. the sentence about rural Antigua
is perhaps more t to an analysis paragraph). But Id rather that than too vague!
Overall strong.
And the structure of the paper clearly follows the thesis itself. Pretty strong transitions
to help us follow that.
Pretty good integration of secondary sources, though it would have been good to hear
exactly what the source says second person does (you just have them generally say
point of view matters).
A sense of the overall purpose of these devices gets a bit lost, throughout. Sometimes
you seem to be talking about essentially tough love but its not always clear how that
relates to each point (how is the extreme criticism actually building the relationship,
e.g? That is, sometimes the evidence does not seem to clearly prove that overall
point).
Sometimes its confusing to note who youre saying is speaking vs who the author is
is the speaker the author? Thats not obvious in this text and youre not always
consistent about it. Om the same vein, its not always clear who the intimacy is being
created with the audience, or the girl. These are tricky things to keep straight.

Grade: B+

LeahClaireKaminski

Youcanreviewthesubmissiondetailsusingthelinkbelow,orcanreplytothis
commentbyrespondingtothismessage.