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
Most of the writing should be your interpretation and analysis of the research, so avoid making the study summaries too long. In this draft you have a bit too much summary. In future drafts you will want to start synthesizing the research studies in a more holistic way, by comparing and contrasting the studies in a continuous flow of analysis. Also, much more depth will be needed in your analysis of the research.
Make sure you're exhausting all of the databases as you search this topic. You will need to narrow the topic down a bit more so that you cover all of the research on your topic (and not have too many studies to review).
The abstract is a summary of the paper, not an introduction.
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.
A suggestion to make the paper stronger would be to integrate all of the studies into more of a cohesive single discussion that includes comparisons and contrasts. Your serial approach in this draft examines each study mostly in isolation from the others. Although this accomplishes the objective of reviewing the studies, the paper can be stronger with a more holistic a synthesis of all the research you found.
I'm still concerned about the topic being too broad and that you haven't addressed a number of other studies on this topic.
The abstract is good, but could use some information about your critique. Also make the title more descriptive.
Usually in a discussion of scientific research, you just list the citation with last name (according to APA) and always refer to the researchers that way, rather than include full names or personal details. This is important to maintain objectivity about focusing on the content itself. It also disrupts the dialog to have additional information about the authors.
Format: The paper needs format improvement. The APA referencing format looks fairly good, although there are at lot of minor mistakes in the citations (including the superfluous author information already noted). Eliminate the "Retrieved from link" since the latest APA doesn't call for a link to database articles.