Peer review of Shivam Pathak’s WA1 (Revision) by Tham Kai Sheng

I suppose one of main differences I can see at one glance is the length of the thesis statement, which is quite similar to mine as well. I understand that after the conference, we realize that even the topic sentence of the main ideas should be specifically pointed out due to academicism, as told by Dr. Sadorra, affecting the thesis statement to be in line with that.

I can see that there’s a change of topic sentence in one paragraph, which I suppose is processed to become a specific one. Apart from this good job, I think there are not much changes around, perhaps Shivam’s first draft was already satisfactory.

Again, about technical issue, there are a few tiny mistakes that I would like to point out. Page numbers should be included like what I have commented previously, so does the page break between outline and essay. I do not really know the generality of the rule but, basically, I think there should be one space after every punctuation mark, except parenthesis, and before an open parenthesis, there should be one space as well. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, there should be a line as space to separate two consecutive paragraphs. Hope that Shivam will take note of this next time. Furthermore, there are still over 800 words there, but I can see the effort of minimizing the body since the thesis statement grows. Nevertheless, at the good side, Shivam has changed the font of references according to the style sheet and the in-text citations according to APA style. I would like to thank Shivam for taking note of what I have previously commented.

Overall, I think the essay is informative with high degree of precision, both in the structure and data.