|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Group 3: "Swimstar 12" Site | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Go To Group Three's Website! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for May 1, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Group 3 does a great job with the Literary Analysis of their book. I was entertained and interested. Good Job Group 3. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for April 2, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For this month's literary analysis I feel that it could have been way better. The Literary analysis should outline what takes place in the book according to Freytag's Pyramid and I dont feel it was done this month. The analysis was broad and seemed as if it could be found in the back of the book. When a group from the class reads the literary analysis, the reader should know what happens at the end of the book, however the ending was not mentioned thoroughly, it was vague and left the reader to guess. There were spelling errors as well, which means editors and revisers should have looked over it a bit closer. If this was done the mistakes that were made would have never occured because more attention would have been given to the analysis. Not completely bashing the groups effort; Group three's website overall is very organized and does a good job at holding the reader's attention. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for March 1, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for February 1, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The story is well expressed and the summary has a lot of personal merit to it, but it doesn't clearly state the exposition, rising action, climax or denoument. It also contains mispellings, but the degree of writing was really good. The story seems to have been taken seriously and with much consideration due to the personal responses. Overall, a good summary. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for January 9, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This was an okay analysis for group 3. The summary of the story was really good - it was in depth without being over-explanatory, and it kept the reader interested the whole time. It caused the reader to want to read the story for theirself. The only negative part about this analysis was the lack of organization. The writing was centered and had bullets, so it might have suggested some sort of logical order, but it was hard to stamp out. Freytag's pyramid was also never mentioned. Overall, this was an okay analysis for group 3. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for December 1, 2006 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Group three's literary analysis of the book "For One More Day" by Mitch Albom was very insightfull and detailed. Group three does a good job of letting the readers who don't have familiarity with this book have a vivid idea of what the book is about. However, there were many mistakes that could have been avoided with editing or a little bit more time on revising. There are fragment sentences, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Another fault was that there wasn't an overall summary of the book after the denouement which should have been apart of the literary analysis. Though these mistakes were made, group three's literary analysis was still very good. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back To Home | |||||||||||||||||||||||||