-Jared is not your primary audience
-You can add a new section called reviewers
-No table of contents yet, but it’s easy to add that once the project is finished. Just make sure to add it once the paper is done.
- No image on the front but it’s not required maybe just helpful
-no executive summary but like the table of contents this can be added once this is done.
Intro:
-editing concerns: 1. the wording is overdone, strange, and too long.
2. the sentences are very long try to break those up but using transitions.
Revision: what are the negative consequences? List those instead of just the negatives of the registration. This will lead into your alternatives section well.
-cite something about a consequence, if you can in the intro, needs to be persuade the reviewer.
-the criteria is supposed to evaluate the alternatives not the problem itself. Preview the aspects of the problem
-state what you are trying to improve about registration so you will transition into your next sections easier.
alternatives:
-specifically what are you doing? It’s hard to tell.
-to make your alternatives more clear, list them. Then break them down 1-2-3. List explain, list explain, etc.
-it’s hard to give feedback when this section doesn’t appear fully developed.
background and context:
if Jared is your audience, as previously stated, you don’t need to address him as assigning you this project, because he knows.
-we need to know the background of the topic, not the assignment. The first two sections of this area are not really relevant.
Criteria:
-explicitly say what your criteria is and what it is defined by the project assignment.
Methods:
Try condensing your information into common topics instead of listing it as “primary” “secondary.” It’s a more effective way to present your findings. It will help the reader find specific information easy and fast.
-is the integration section the recommendation? It seems like you don’t
-no evaluation section
-the results section is too image dominated. You don’t need to have a graph per every question on the survey. Try summarizing these results in a few sentences. It’ll be easier to read these conclusions instead of having to look at each graph.
comparable registration applications:
what are we getting from this section?
Summarize what you’ve found but actually compare it to WSU. Pro’s and con’s, best practices, findings from?, what does this offer to WSU?
-consider sub headings in the prototype section
-you need a second dimension of results, maybe about scheduling system practices at other universities. Credible sources? Maybe not just listing what WSU students say
-some of your conclusions seem like the most obvious answer. You can’t just say this is the problem, no one likes a problem, fix it.
http://fstudysuperstructure.pbworks.com/w/page/94782686/FrontPage