Discussion
NOTE: The work presented on this page was produced as part of a learning exercise. While the content was reviewed and controls were in place to improve accuracy and quality, it may contain gross inaccuracy or poor quality. The emphasis was on the learning process and the sharing of information. Furthermore, this content may still be under revision. For more information about the process, see About UniCommons.com. For more accurate subject content related to this work, see Subjects.
Comments
Excellent start to the paper. You have a good specific topic and some good resources selected. I'm not sure all of them are specific to psychological momentum, so make sure you have everything specific to the topic.
Most of the writing should be your interpretation and analysis of the research, rather than "reporting" on what the research has found. By this, I mean that you should provide your own dialog that questions, analyzes, and compares/contrasts the research on the topic.
Your writing takes on a good professional nature but grammar needs polishing in future drafts. Use way less quoting and more paraphrasing.
In text citations aren't done quite right in APA format. Also, order and elements of the paper (e.g. abstract, reference list) will need to be addressed in the next draft.
Make sure you're exhausting all of the databases as you search this topic, because I suspect you might need to narrow it down a bit more so that you cover all of the research on your topic (and not have too many studies to review).
Most of the dialogue should be in the form of your own critique and interpretation of the research. Let your voice come though.
Work on improving the grammar and write in a more formal way.
The referencing and citations are not in APA style yet.
You don't include a complete list of references, so unfortunately I can't comment on the what you intend to review.
Your critique should be less of a reaction and more of an interpretation of results and critical analysis of the research.
You have all of the elements and concepts of a good paper, but more depth and cohesiveness is needed in the dialog. By cohesiveness, I am referring to making a more intimate connection between the studies in your discussion. Basically, include more comparison and contrast of multiple studies; also, draw conclusions based on these. This should develop into a more logical culmination of the paper at the end.
An abstract is needed.
Work still needs to be done with making the dialog less conversational and more academic in nature. Avoid clauses like "with that being said" and "This is a very interesting." Referring to your own personal experience also detracts from the objectivity and scientific nature of the paper. The focus in the research and your critique of it. Keep the pronoun use consistent, with 3rd person being preferred.
Format: The paper needs format improvement. The APA referencing format looks fairly good, although there are some minor mistakes on some of the in-text citations and on the reference list. When you refer to researchers, just use their last name (as per APA) and skip the information about their university. Also the ordering of the paper (references at end) and other fine tuning still needs to occur.