Posted on November 11, 2018
After my meeting with Professor Lucenko and reading the article by Harris, an important question that I should ask myself is “what works? How can [I] build strengths of [my] draft?” (Harris, 99). Well to begin, one thing I need to fix is the use of one of my sources. Professor Lucenko pinpointed how one of the main sources I used was a news source and wouldn’t be seen as that credible. She suggested that I do some further research on who the doctor was and to try and find his study individually so that my paper would be seen as more credible. Another thing I need to revise in my paper is stating the individual credibility of the doctors so that the audience has additional context on who they are and what field they are in. In addition to correcting and checking my source credibility, I also need to fix my sentence structure so that they are more flowing. This includes but is not limited to adding brackets, changing sentence order, and/or citing a source so it is clear where certain parts of my sentence are coming from. Lastly, I have to fix how my sentences begin because the word choice I use can be misleading at times. An example from my paper is how instead of writing “Ultimately, incarcerations could be ruled as a punitive rather than rehabilitative due to the lack of educational…” I can say something like, “Given the persuasive evidence on juvenile justice, it is clear that incarcerations could be classified/identified…” Other than that, when reading the article I felt that I adequately responded to the other questions such as including the “what comes next” (118) because I do a good job at proposing a solution and giving a living example of that solution. Something that was not in the article but is something that I could also revise is increasing the word count of my paper which needs to be 1350 but right now is at about 1200.