Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Is this ok for an introduction?

  1. #1

    Default Is this ok for an introduction?

    Ok first off, I'm not sure if I should post this in here, it just seemed the most appropriate place, if its not welcome here, I'm more than happy with it being moved somewhere else. Anyway so I have to write a critique for University to compare and contrast two differen't cemetery reports, and I have just finished the introduction, I was wondering if anyone could read through it to see if it sounds ok?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This report aims to compare and critique two different cemetery reports from different sites, with both sites approximately being of the same period. The first report published in Medieval Archaeology in 1989 by Michael Farley and Keith Manchester looks at the cemetery of the leper hospital of St Margaret in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. Although the report makes for an interesting read into the palaeopathology of the remains, it is a very short report, only encompassing around eight pages which lacks detailed information on the skeletal remains. The second report published in the journal of Irish archaeology in 2008 by Brendon Wilkins and Susan Lalonde looks at an early medieval settlement and cemetery at Carrowkeel in County Galway, Ireland. This report is much longer than the first, roughly around twenty seven pages, enabling it to include much more information about the site and the human remains.


    Thanks
    Raradir

  2. #2
    General Retreat's Avatar Policeman Pleb
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Kent, England
    Posts
    987

    Default Re: Is this ok for an introduction?

    I'd be happy to take a crack at this!

    My first impression is that you should be very careful when using repetition. When it's used for stylistic effect it can be very good, but when unintentional it can break up the flow of a sentence and make a work seem less 'professional'. Number one offender in this case would be 'report'. By using more varied phrasing and perhaps spicing things up with some exotic punctuation - perhaps a semi-colon - you'd make your introduction much punchier.

    As a quick example, I'll pencil some minor amendments in for you to take a look at and see what you think:

    Revisions
    This paper aims to compare and critique two academic reports which focus on different sites in approximately the same time period. The first report was published in Medieval Archaeology in 1989 by Michael Farley and Keith Manchester; it looks at the cemetery of the leper hospital of St Margaret in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. Although the report provides an interesting insight into the palaeopathology of the remains, it is a very short report, only encompassing around eight pages. Consequently, this is lacking in detailed information on the skeletal remains. The second report, published in the journal of Irish archaeology in 2008 by Brendon Wilkins and Susan Lalonde, looks at an early medieval settlement and cemetery at Carrowkeel in County Galway, Ireland. This report is much longer than the first, at roughly twenty seven pages, enabling it to include much more information about the site and the human remains.

    As you can see, I've varied the sentence structure and included parenthesis where relevant. Sentence structure is almost always subjective as different texts read different ways to different people, so whether or not these alterations are useful is entirely up to you. Your introduction was already very well done, and really only needs a little fine tuning.

    As a fan of medieval history, I'd also be fascinated in hearing a little more of your essay when you're done with it.
    Swords of the Sea: 1066 has come and gone, the Danelaw torn down and a new kingdom built in the image of its Norman rulers. But with time, wounds heal and what is broken can be reforged. The Danes have returned with steel, and seek to reclaim what is theirs.
    The Great Expedition: Pax Anglia, one of Earth's great empires, sprawling across the stars. On their newly colonised planet of Nova Sydney, adventure awaits on the savage frontier - Henry Boyce steps forward to lead an expedition to pierce the Bushlands' wild heart.
    Winter War: Finland, 1939. The Soviet war machine has begun its indomitable advance from the east. Of all its neighbours, only Finland stands alone in defiance. Conscript Anton Bezrukov prepares for a quick victory, but the reality is far bloodier...

  3. #3

    Default Re: Is this ok for an introduction?

    Thanks man, with minor tweaking like that it sounds so much better, this is the first time I've been asked to critique two articles in the same essay, so I was really unsure how to structure the intro, I'd be happy to email my finished critique to you when I'm done and handed in, also if you'd like the two reports I'm doing this on I'd be happy to let you have them to read, since your a fan of Medieval History

    Thanks
    Raradir

  4. #4
    Hitai de Bodemloze's Avatar 避世絕俗
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,306
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Is this ok for an introduction?

    I've been told it's bad form to begin an academic introduction with 'this paper/this report' etc. It's generally better to begin with a few sentences about the topic at hand, before moving onto what you're going to be discussing. Also, you need to assess which words are useful and which are academically useless or complicated. Words like 'very', 'much' and 'interesting' have zero meaning in a paper, since they don't add anything. 'Very', 'much', 'around' and 'roughly' (and potentially 'approximately' in certain circumstances) aren't quantifiable, so are therefore meaningless in any objective sense, whilst 'interesting' is too subjective, opening up a whole can of worms. Of interest to who? Why? Compared to what? Why should we care about these peoples' interests? How do we even measure interest? Similarly, words like 'lack' imply a judgment on behalf of the author. Did the paper intend to cover skeletal remains in more detail and fail? Has similar research shown skeletal remains to be integral to the field of study? When you use 'lack', you are showing your personal opinion on the topic. You find it lacking. You need a good reason to justify this choice of wording. Try and stay away from colloquial language as well, such as 'looks at...', 'makes for...' etc. etc. Journal names should also be capitalized and italicized I think, as in Journal of Irish Archaeology and Medieval Archaeology.

    Secondly, your introduction doesn't seem to cover the topic at hand. Other than introduce the two papers, you haven't told us how you've compared them or what the results of your comparison are. One is shorter and the other has more information on the site and human remains, but that doesn't tell us anything substantial. How do their methodologies differ? What conclusions do they reach? Why do they reach these? How did you analyse them? What is your conclusion and, most importantly, why should we care about your conclusion? Remember, your introduction is a mini-conclusion in and of itself. You provide some background to the field of study and then succinctly summarize your paper. You then talk about how you reached your conclusion in the main part of the essay and then provide a more thorough conclusion at the end. It's actually better to write your introduction after you've finished the rest of your paper for this reason.

    I'd also disagree with our General Retreat. Repetition in academia is not frowned upon. You're here to present your argument as clearly as possible. If you have to recycle the same words, granted it won't look pretty, but it will get the job done. Remember, you're not being marked on style. Grammar yes, but not style. So long as it reads well, don't worry about using the word 'report' in every sentence. Don't over-complicate your paper by adding new synonyms where they're not needed. Use of such synonyms can actually be detrimental, if they don't precisely mean the same as the original word you intend to replace. Use the correct terminology always, no matter how many times you have to write the same word out.

    Finally, word to the wise, I'd advise against posting to the internet work you're going to be assessed on, as you could potentially be marked down for plagiarism. Even if you're plagiarising yourself, if you're caught it could still be detrimental for you. If you're worried about your essays, it's probably better to discuss them with your lecturers. If they're anything like mine, they'll be more than happy to go over your paper with you if you're struggling. Academics are as much as a resource for you as the books are in the library.

    Sorry if any of that sounded harsh, it wasn't my intention. I'm a university student myself and - not wanting to brag, just to justify my comments - my essays are generally graded quite high, so I know my way around academic writing.
    Last edited by Hitai de Bodemloze; March 09, 2014 at 11:37 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •