Peer Review of “Gingivitis”

To: Trisha Bhamra

From: Alexander Clements

Peer Review / Term: Gingivitis

Thank you for your submission of the ENGL 301 definition assignment. The document was informative and made for an enjoyable read. Please see the comments and suggestions for improvement in the review below.

First Impressions

• The introduction does a great job of establishing the parameters of the assignment and provides a relatable scenario to many potential readers.
• Overall, the definitions provided are easy to digest for a non-technical audience.

Organization

• It may be helpful to make the main headings in the document larger than the sub-headings (the definition headings).

Introduction

• The introduction to the assignment was well thought out and comprehensive.
• It was interesting to note the reason this definition was chosen for the assignment.
• The scenario is very detailed and practical.

Definition

• The sentence definition would be better suited as a parenthetical definition, given its brevity.
• The sentence definition should provide some more information on the term.
  • It would work to use the second sentence of the expanded definition as the sentence definition for Gingivitis.
• The expanded definition is concise without lacking too many details. This is excellent for the intended audience.
• The in-text citations in the expanded definition should include a comma separating the name of the author and the year.
• The last sentence of the expended definition could be more specific.
  • What constitutes a “healthy individual”?
  • What is three-month scaling?
• The first and second sentences of the expanded definitions could be switched, to first provide an explanation of Gingivitis and then details of the etymology.

Visuals

• Informative visual, distinguishing Gingivitis from Periodontitis and healthy gums.
• A reference to the visual within the expanded definition text will help to establish the connection in the reader’s mind.

Grammar/Typos

• There are several typos throughout the document.
  • The parenthetical definition is missing a period. The start of the definition should be capitalized.
  • The first work in the sentence definition should be capitalized.
  • The last sentence in the expanded definition is missing a period.
• The first sentence in the last paragraph of the introduction should be modified to eliminate repetition of the word “definitions”.
• The last sentence of the expanded definition is awkward and could be re-worded to improve clarity.
  • For example, “improved at home oral hygiene routine” could be changed to “improved oral hygiene.”

References

• There are a sufficient number of sources in the reference list.
• The first initials of authors in the reference entries should be separated by periods.
• In a given entry, all authors for the work should be listed. “Et al.” is appropriate for an in-text citation, but not in the Works Cited list.

Concluding Comments

Overall, the document was well written. The definitions were informative, concise, and easy to understand. The following suggestions will help to improve the quality of the document and make it even better:

• Replace the parenthetical definition with the existing sentence definition and update the sentence definition to include some additional information about Gingivitis.
• Update the reference list and in-text citations to follow APA guidelines.
• Add additional points of clarification to the expanded definition to clarify new terms, such as “healthy individuals” and “three-month scaling” (see notes above).
• Update the sizes of the document’s main headings and sub-headings.
• Review the document for typos and areas where filler words can be eliminated.

Thank you for the quality work, and for considering the points in this review. Please ask any clarifying questions if required!

Link: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99c-2021wc/2022/01/30/assignment-13-writing-three-defintions/