Peer Review of Class papers

Group 1

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10YpJkwoA8FH6lxDcInE__S83AhNbJo-C7Pam5x3aFxA/edit?usp=sharing

Group 3

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fd-ht2mNh92UjMLXcTGP5NTSNOGcuMDUeOu-3_soOm0/edit?usp=sharing

A good paper with alot of easily understood information. However, the structure of the paper could be changed. instead of leading with questions to start off the paragraphs perhaps change it to introduction, background, slope mechanics, Case study 2019 (where all information is put together), and a conclusion where the paper is summarized and remediation techniques are suggested. There are no in text citation or other references. To add credibility and understanding add more information that can be referenced. Figures could be added and used to reference and breakdown a lot of the information. the paragraphs are also very long and could be broken up so the reader has time to digest the information. Without the breaks the paper is rather long and strenuous to read, adding the breaks will help with sinking in key points and key information in the paper.

Group 4

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gU4Jc9aLzD7HmNS6_qEZFRv3UxOAaGhvjvy10pdDPA4/edit?usp=sharing

A good paper with all the key information needed. The introduction could be longer with more information about the area and what models could be used to describe all the evidence. Figures could be used more to help with describing what is happening at riverside avenue. The language of the paper in some parts is informal making the tone seem less educated then the information suggests. The tone should be made more formal and concise. In text citations should be used to reference information. The figures were great and helping with improving understanding of the paper. The structure of the paper could use some work as there is no clearly stated conclusion. The discussion could be broken up with subheading prefacing the information that will be discussed in the discussion portion of the paper.

Group 5

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NCslLzoPXOSQ6JQHaVfq5Ur2E1keyNLNTVbIopSq-P0/edit?usp=sharing

This paper was very concise with a lot of information in a easy and digestible format. The only suggestion I have is to add in text citations , and reference your figures so that the information in the paragraph can be seen in a visual context further improving understanding of the material. The abstract was great with just the right amount of information outlining the paper so the reader knows what to expect and where to expect it in the paper. Remediation strategies are great the the suggestion to the city take the next step in solving the problem.

Group 6

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGTTCdWIrVkSKBihEs_bodURhVsyrQxmAThjgVKj950/edit?usp=sharing

A good paper. The abstract is concise with the information and outlines what will be covered throughout the paper. Good use of figures throughout the paper adding understanding to text. Great lead in’s to next topics, good tone and great flow. The structure of the paper is east to follow and the information discussed is east to understand. The cost benefit analysis helps the paper as a whole bring the geology to an economic understanding. The conclusion is concise and great. The paper could use more in text citations to reference information used. The paper is good but is a little long and could use some trimming of information that just adds rather that enhancing the paper.