Hey there fuzzy! I hope the following comments help you somewhat, it must be pretty tough doing english without 1/2! So I've kept that in mind with my judgments. Language Analysis was never my strong point (got 8/10 in the exam for section C) but I'll still try to help you out as best I can!
Sorry if I've repeated what others have said, I didn't read the other feedback so I wouldn't know.
Green = good
Orange = Another word suggested
Red = bad/needs changing
In the wake of the recent Nice opener!Christmas Island boat tragedy that claimed the lives of over 30 asylum seekers, the Labour party’s
relaxed maybe replace with "lax". I know you've written "lax" later on, but here I think it's good to add variation, a nice shorter description seems to make it flow better in this sentence. Maybe use relaxed instead of lax for the next one...refugee policy has been the focus of significant debate and scrutiny in the Australian media. In “Gillard Government asylum policy now all at sea”, an editorial published on the Herald Sun website on 16th December 2010, the writer contends that it is imperative
that perhaps replace with "for" the Federal Government’s asylum seeker policy
to (added in "to" in order to make the above change of "for" fluent.. It avoids the double "that" which made the flow static) be amended in order to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future, and aims to invoke a reaction of compassion and empathy from the target audience by using hyperbole
and Replace with a commaemotive language and video footage to appeal to the reader’s conscience.
This sentence is too long. Break it up, never leave a sentence this long, it never ends well..Also, you've forgotten to mention tone (unless I've missed it somewhere), tone is VERY important, it's one of the key elements to an introduction so make sure you ALWAYS mention the tone. An opinion piece titled “PM must be quick with details about Christmas Island tragedy” by Mr. Rob Oakeshott, Independent Federal MP, published on the The Age website on 17th December 2010, examines Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s response to the Christmas Island incident. Oakeshott suggests, in a reasoned and deliberate style, that it is necessary for Gillard to outline the facts and details of the tragedy and share this information with the Australian public as soon as possible. Both of these pieces share an audience of those members of the Australian public who hold a genuine interest in the issue of Australia’s policy towards asylum seekers, and the consequences of the Christmas Island tragedy.
Okay, when analysing two articles you need to cut down on the amount of stuff you put in your introduction. I would say you don't need to write the date the article was written but this varies from person to person. Some teachers say it's necessary while others say it's a waste of time. So that's up to you to eventually decide. Although, I think when you've got two articles something like the date needs to be edited out. Try to just give a brief overview in your intro when it's TWO articles otherwise it looks like you've just written two full introductions and put them side by side. The ONE intro should encompass both articles without it being too long. The main things you need to have in your intro are: title of the pieces, author's name, their tone, their contention, the broad issue (not in that order though) and that's about it. (if you're only analysing one article you might like to add in a comment on the piece's structure as well but since there's two articles it's just not practical)..Don't cover too much ground! Save it for the body paragraphs The title of the Herald Sun employs pun Does this make sense? Isn't it the title of the piece not the newspaper that contains the pun? The distinction between the two isn't clear enough with those first few words.(Gillard
Government asylum policy “now all at sea” Maybe just write the words "now all at sea" attract.... Because you want to only quote the actual pun instead of the whole title.) to attract
the reader’s attention by simultaneously referencing the late sinking off the coast of Christmas Island, and emphasising the editor’s assertion that the Labour government’s asylum policy is flawed. Expression here could be improved. Keep rearranging the sentence until it flows better. I think it needs to be cut down. Once again, the sentence length is causing an issue..be wary of long sentences. This is followed by a short video clip of the tragedy in question
, which, Reconsider the use of commas here.. It seems rather odd. coupled with the subtitle of the editorial, serves to emphasise the implications of the tragedy and the reality that many innocent lives were lost. The immediate mention of the number of human
lives lost A tad repetitious - replace with "humans who perished"is used to arouse compassion and to lead the audience towards the writer’s argument that the Government’s “flawed asylum seeker policy” is to be blamed for the unfortunate deaths of the refugees in question. The first half of the editorial uses descriptive language such as “the hazardous journey” and “leaky boats” and “risk their lives” to highlight the plight of asylum seekers, and make the perilous nature of the journey undertaken by refugees seeking asylum in Australia absolutely clear to the audience.
This approach gradually leads the target audience to the editor’s contention that the Labour government’s lax policies aretempting refugees to embark on the voyage to Australia.
The first half of this sentence is quite generic.. The author uses repetition of the themes of compassion and responsibility throughout the piece, which, in effect, aims to compel the reader to react with empathy towards the victims of the tragedy, and to consider the government’s position of responsibility in this matter.Tick This sentence, although long, manages to maintain it's flow and the effect on the reader is specific which is what we want! Likewise, Oakeshott’s opinion piece explores the Labour Government’s level of responsibility concerning the Christmas Island tragedy. As a Member of Parliament, Oakeshott relates his own personal experience as a member of the multi-party climate change committee in comparison with Gillard’s proposition to hold a similar “Christmas Island incident” committee. His assertion that he
, remove comma..himself cannot “value add” as part of a multi-party committee as “the truth of what happened is known or it is not”
Quotes longer than four words are hardly ever desirable, be wary when quoting more than 4 words.. is presented to the reader in a straightforward and open fashion, inviting the reader to trust
in Remove "in" Oakeshott’s personal experience and opinion concerning the Prime Minister’s proposed committee.
The title immediately clarifies Oakeshott’s contention, which is then elaborated upon in the body of the opinion piece.This sentence offers no interesting insight. I'd remove it completely. Sensationalism and forceful language are utilised by Oakeshott when he states that the rumour of the Australian government’s involvement in the tragedy will lead to “hysteria, xenophobia and conspiracy” if unfounded. These ideas are repeated again towards the end of the article, where Oakeshott mentions the concern held by Vietnamese Australian immigrants that the Christmas Island tragedy might give rise to racial tension amongst various ethnic groups within Australia.
Oakeshott also maintains that the
onus Nice word to use there!lies with Julia Gillard to lead our nation through the aftermath of this tragedy, and to provide “the Australian people” with the facts that they “need” to hear
These quotes don't seem relevant...If you removed the quotation marks it'd probably be better... The inclusive tone of the piece encourages the reader to feel as though they
, too, Avoid this type of comma use I think. And the rest of this sentence has another 3 commas.. A few too many I think for the one sentence. deserve to hear “the truth”, a recurring motif which is, in part, the focus of Oakeshott’s piece. Overall, the writer aims to convince the reader that they are entitled to the facts concerning the Christmas Island boat tragedy, and that the Prime Minister is obliged to share whatever information she has access to, concerning the incident, with the nation that she leads.
This is a summary, not at all needed. Both Oakeshott’s opinion piece and the Herald Sun editorial
make use of numerous persuasive techniques Big no no. Persuasive techniques are inherent within any piece of persuasive writing. The writer doesn't "use" them as such. to convince their audience of people who are truly interested in the consequences of the Christmas Island tragedy that the Labour government has a responsibility to take action in order to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring in the future.
This conclusion also lacks what is normally required in a conclusion...Here's the conclusion "recipe" I gave to Azngirl and I think it's a good one to follow, this is more for a ONE article analysis though, but still I think it's relevant nonetheless...
- discuss the likely reactions the article will provoke from different audience groups (this one is VERY important and gives you a chance to discuss something different instead of just repeating yourself)
- discuss the overall style and approach (e.g. formal, informal, dogmatic, didactic, etc.) taken by the author
- effectively restate the author's purpose
Overall comments:
- Watch your sentence length. Sentences which seem too long, probably ARE too long. So cut them down to avoid poor expression. Avoid long quotes too, I generally had the rule that anything longer than 4 words is probably not great to put in..So keep that in mind. The best quotes are usually 1 or 2 word ones..
- Focus more on the effect on the reader/audience. This is the KEY to a good analysis. It needs to incorporate as much effect as possible.. That is what will get you a high mark.
- I'm not sure if you just do this only online or when you hand write as well, but try to leave a full line between paragraphs. It makes the breaks between paragraphs more clear and also makes the piece easier to read.
- When analysing two articles it's good to contrast them quite a bit as well. Your analysis didn't differentiate enough between the two articles. There needs to be a very clear distinction between the two. How do their focuses differ? How does their writing style and tone differ? How do these differences impact upon the reader? These are important questions which need to be clearly addressed in the piece (preferably in the penultimate paragraph).''
- I think you actually didn't repeat too many words. Which is always refreshing! So good job there, most people really struggle with that. I also think most of the "difficult" vocab you included was aptly used; many people (including myself sometimes *hangs head in shame) just plug in "cool sounding" words which don't necessarily fit in as well as they should. So that's another positive that I found from your piece!
Slumdawg's Final Mark: 6.5/10.. Very good for your first full analysis! I think you've got quite good control of language, there's a few things that need to be fixed in general but overall I think you're heading in the right direction and you'll be whipping out 10/10s in no time if you take on board the comments.
Home
Help
Search
Login
