Comparison of Research Papers - Assignment Example

Comparison of Research Papers Introduction I have used my incomplete paper on video editing to compare with my classmate’s paper on building a PC. It does not compare well, so I have much work to do. Aside from the obviously unfinished look and the missing parts, such as the abstract, title page and TOC, the form of my paper is not very attractive. I think this paper needs more focus and organization. In looking only at the criteria for writing this assessment I see that my paper is not a good product. The thesis statement is not clear and the audience is not defined. It is really more like a report than a dissertation from the definitions. The paper compared also has some of the same problems, but it is closer to the ideal, I think. It will be useful to compare these papers. Comparison of Form and Content The form of the paper Building a PC is closer to completion than the Video Editing paper, and the table of contents is a good thing to make just for organization. I tried reformatting to create an automatic TOC and it showed me great holes in the continuity of the paper. There is only a little about the actual purpose of the paper, so that needs some expansion until it makes the paper’s purpose clear. Without the purpose, the organization is flawed, because we cannot make a map if we do not know where we are going. The paper on Building a PC is much more developed in this area, but it also needs to say more about the purpose of the paper. The writer does justify the idea that engineers need the experience of building a PC, but he still does not say why he is writing this paper. Maybe it is to provide the steps for building the PC. It does not explain very well who the audience is either, but maybe it is other engineering students. The second part of both papers is a very big jump without a bridge. In rereading my own paper I see that without the explanation of why I am writing and what my plans are, the paper is not connected to the first part from the second part. The same is true of the paper on Building a PC. The author labels this second part the “Research Part”, so maybe he is trying to tell the reader what needs to be investigated. I see that he includes a very nice graph on comparison for parts with three companies, so I think maybe the writer is suggesting that comparison shopping needs to be done. Since he does not say this, then this part is just a catalogue and may not even be needed, since the building of a PC is not dependent upon purchasing the right parts, That is the planning to build a PC. If the author wants to include the planning then we need to know these things. If the purpose of this paper was to teach someone how to assemble a PC, then the first part is not needed. However, more explanation of what the parts do, where they go, why these parts were selected and how they work together would be nice. My paper on Video Editing gets a little closer to the needs with a statement of what this paper will contain. However, the big jump to the storyline needs more work. It does not say why I am writing this paper. The third section of the papers should detail the organization and methods for explaining or illustrating the necessary information for completing the purpose of the paper. Since I know my own purpose, I can actually see that the parts 1-3 actually fulfill this purpose, but my audience would not have any way of knowing. Also, the paper moves to the creation of the storyboard without explaining why it is needed. It will be hard to follow. The paper on Building a PC finishes its catalogue and then begins to describe the process of building a PC. However, in the catalogue, no help was given for selecting parts and vendors, so this is a big hole also. The practical part is well labeled and there is an explanation of the author’s intent. I think the author knew more about what he was saying at this point. The organization of the author’s thought are easy to see. However, the part about what was provided to use to build a PC did not make it clear why or by whom they were provided or why these parts were selected. There is a nice chart for software selection, so that is very clear what software was selected and why. The part describing the processes in my paper on video editing is also an improvement upon the first part, I think it is easier to describe step by step procedures than to do the introductory parts which state purpose, identify audience and describe the plan. The concluding parts of the papers are both very short, and they do not really make any conclusions about the papers. They reiterate the first statement of why these things are needed for engineers to know and about what use they will be, but maybe there is more need for a statement of purpose at the beginning in order to make a good conclusion. Both papers at the end seem to be talking to the instructor, and that is not supposed to be our audience, so maybe that needs to be changed. The graphics in the paper on PC building are very many, especially with all those charts. They are very pretty, but they may be too much. I was lost after a little bit. The one graphic which does not fit at all is the first one, but it is a little humorous, so it is ok. There needs to be explanation of why each is included and citation of the sources too. The graphics in my paper on video editing could also be improved in quality. There needs to be more to show each part and each set of steps, The story board graphics work well because there is explanation accompanying each picture. The author of Building a PC took a lot of time and effort to insert really nice graphics, but he does not say where he found them and they really are too many. The author lists all the parts, but does not say how to choose. Nothing is said about the purpose of the PC either, and that makes a difference in how you build it and what you use. I also need to show the sources for my graphics, but my paper contains only a few, so there is lees to do about that. However, the paper needs more and I shall; have to make them myself to illustrate the processes I describe. The paper on Building a PC has better grammar I think. My own grammar needs a lot of editing. I think a TOC will help as the parts can be put in their right places and then the descriptions and other writing can be added in. Maybe the other paper has better grammar, because it is mostly the texts used in books. There is really not much narrative in the other paper, since the charts are left to do all the explaining. Neither one of these papers are successful. However, the paper on Building a PC looks much nicer. It has all the parts, and only now needs the contents modified a bit. Both papers do not state their purpose or describe their audience well so the conclusions are also inadequate, because they have to be built upon the purpose, audience and content. Also, in reading about referencing, I can see that I should have made notes. I do not remember what part of this paper is connected to which information source, so there are no in-text citations. The same is true for the paper on Building a PC, but there are a lot more things to cite in that paper, so it looks like a bigger flaw than it is. I think both of these papers fall short of the mark. They both need more statements of purpose and audience and their conclusions are not appropriate. The content is ok for video editing and pretty good for building a PC, but the audience is not addressed at all. There needs to be more explanation of why I am showing these things. The paper on Building a PC is well organized, but it may have a few too many graphics or else it just needs more explanation to make each graphic relevant. The formatting should be improved in my paper on video editing. It could look a lot nicer. The grammar is better in the paper on Building a PC, and the organization is superior, but neither paper seems complete. It seems like they are both more descriptions without purpose than papers with some aim in mind. Both papers are weak in what they actually say to the audience and need better transitions. References Abdullazeez, Ali, 2009, Video Editing Author name, 2009, Building a PC Author or editors, year, textbook name, chapter if relevant Read More