You go on a lot about birds and frogs, but including so many examples of writing about them seems sort of superfluous to me. I found the two concepts pretty easy to think about, and the added detail didn’t do much to increase my understanding.
(You cite them later which is great, but I feel like where the reffered to idea is vital you could just say “___ said __” and summarize the point you want to use, rather than give us their whole quote to wade through)
Beavers, on the other hand, were introduced abruptly, and then not explained nearly as much. The Beaver classification seemed like an interesting idea to me, but I was sort of disappointed by their coverage.
The article raises some interesting ideas, but I feel like you did a disservice to them by focusing so much on birds and frogs, and so little on beavers, which seem to be the more novel part of your analysis.
You go on a lot about birds and frogs, but including so many examples of writing about them seems sort of superfluous to me. I found the two concepts pretty easy to think about, and the added detail didn’t do much to increase my understanding. (You cite them later which is great, but I feel like where the reffered to idea is vital you could just say “___ said __” and summarize the point you want to use, rather than give us their whole quote to wade through)
Beavers, on the other hand, were introduced abruptly, and then not explained nearly as much. The Beaver classification seemed like an interesting idea to me, but I was sort of disappointed by their coverage.
The article raises some interesting ideas, but I feel like you did a disservice to them by focusing so much on birds and frogs, and so little on beavers, which seem to be the more novel part of your analysis.
I hope that’s helpful.
Thanks.