{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"17740939","dateCreated":"1259907976","smartDate":"Dec 3, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"cpenna","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/cpenna","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/engl-110-research-projects.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/17740939"},"dateDigested":1532428630,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Some Comments on Your Rough Draft","description":"Your page looks very nice<\/strong>. Good job w\/ visual appeal. BUT you need to cite those images and put a caption beneath them that refers to your Works Cited.
\n
\nYour first paragraph seems to mix technical writing and scientific writing together. Are they the same thing?
\n
\nUnder Strengths, you have this passage that seems to come from out of nowhere:
\n
\nAccording to Brian Stephen Budgell, researchers and clinicians have great difficulty publishing scientific journals in a \u201chighly competitive, publish-or-perish environment of contemporary academia.\u201d Bugdell further states that editors and reviewers \u201conly accept 10% or 20% of the submissions\u201d they receive annually
\n
\nYou make your point later, but this needs to be set up better.
\n
\nWhere does this come from? You haven't referred to it before, but make it sound as if you have:
\n
\n"the logos and ethos of such papers would be poor, ineffective, and unconvincing"
\n
\nOverall this page is pretty good.
\n
\n- \"cpenna\"<\/a> cpenna<\/a><\/span>","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}