Joslin's review of Freed

Peer Review and Commentary—Science Feature AJ Joslin review of Bret Freed

The Lead:

How does the lead pull the reader in and entice her to read on?  Is it surprising, or are claims made that are common knowledge (note: the reader shouldn’t be able to say, ‘well duh.’)?  Is it effective?  Can it be made more effective?  (think details, human drama, evocative language—why do/don’t you want to read on?)

The author has a strong lead. They make the reader think of a world where everything is theirs and they can do whatever they want. Seems impossible but it is a lucid dream.

Does the lead give a clear indication of what the story will be about, or rely on mystery, or both?  Would more of a focus be helpful?  Is the reader aware of the importance of a topic—why it matters and is worth learning about?  Adversely, if for more entertainment purposes, is the topic engaging enough to compel reading?

The author give us the topic of the paper in the title and towards the end of the first paragraph. They don’t rely on mystery.

Organization:

Consider how the story is structured.  Chronological, thematic, chapter/section-based, inquiry-driven?  Is it effective?  Be specific—if a paragraph doesn’t transition well into the next, mention it and provide suggestions for improvement.

The paper is organized. It starts off with the intro, then the science behind dreaming, lucid dreaming, and then experiments related to lucid dreaming.

Is each paragraph well focused, or are several ideas competing for attention?  How can better focus be achieved?

The paragraph about the author’s experiments and scientist experiments seem to overlap towards the end. Besides that they are strong.

Are there certain points (factual or narrative based) that require more development?  Are you, the reader, unclear at certain points?  Are any ideas superfluous or distracting?

I think the ending needs more development. We get the science behind dreaming and then experiments but then it just ends.

Balance of human interest and information.  Point out sections that become too bogged down in dry facts or heavily specialized concepts.  Adversely, find sections that rely on narrative without giving the reader proper background information and factual points of reference.

I think the balance works in the paper.

Are claims backed up by examples, evidence, research?  Are sensory details employed effectively?  Are abstractions made concrete through use of examples and details?

Claims are backed up by people’s recorded experiences

How is the story concluded?  Does it wrap up the topic neatly and provide closure?  Does it ask bigger questions or compel the reader to search for more?  Are you left wanting more (and is this a good thing)?  Is it effective?

The conclusion comes up fast. The author talks about the idea of a dream mirror and then the paper ends. I think a few paragraphs could be added to the end. Maybe one more new idea and then a complete conclusion.

Voice and Audience

Characterize the story’s voice and tone?  Is it suitable for the topic?  Is it engaging?  Is it consistent throughout the piece?  If first person POV is used, is this effective or jarring (remember, most story’s should rely on the strength of the topic for engagement, not the evidence of authorial intrusion).

The author tone works for this paper. They are very curious in the topic and making lucid dreaming work. Not all he answer are known on this topic so the paper doesn’t have all the answer either. The voice is effective for what the author is talking about.

Try to characterize the audience.  What venue (publication) do you think this story suits?  Why?  Does the author effectively address this audience (too dumbed-down or sensational, too dry and esoteric)?

This could apply to anyone. Since everyone dreams, any person could be interested in lucid dreaming. With the science background this paper could be read by almost anyone.

Mechanics

Mark any ineffective or over-used word/phrase choices.  Mark any repetitive sentence structures.  Offer advice on vocabulary, syntax, and sentence structure.

Mark other grammar issues and typos.

Marked on paper