Shovel Bum: Comix of Archaeological Field Life

Paper instructions:
How to write an introduction for a formal review for either a book review, a review of a film or article

You will reviewing the book Shovel Bum. When you review writings, you will want to follow a certain structure or organization. First, as the writer, you must consider the reader. If you are going to pitch the ball, you must set up the catcher. The best way to do this in academic writing is to have an introduction to your paper that anyone can pick up and read and consequently, understand WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PAPER IS, WHAT THE PAPER WILL COVER, AND THE SEQUENCE OF TOPICS THE READER WILL READ. Do not, at this stage in your academic career, worry about being creative. You have a job to do in reviewing a paper, and you should think of it as building a structure. So, the first paragraph tells all. One may start of by stating the purpose after a few beginning sentences. For example, if you are reviewing an article on reading you might have the following opening introductory paragraph:

Children entering first grade often have difficulty learning how to read. How children acquire knowledge of sounds may be the key in learning to read. The purpose of the present paper is to critique of the peer-reviewed research entitled “The Psychological Understanding of Phonemes.” Joseph Burkowsky of
the University of Miami wrote the research. It was published in Developmental Psychology in May 2009. In this critique I will briefly discuss my personal interest in reading and why I chose this research to review. I will thoroughly summarize Dr. Burkowsky’s work, paying particular attention to the result and conclusion sections. A discussion of weak points of Dr. Burkowsky’s selection of subjects and his lack of a proper baseline will be explored. I will highlight the strengths of the research. A suggestion for further research on phonemes will be offered. Finally, my own opinions on how to teach reading will be offered to the reader.

Globalization is a topic that is very current in anthropology right now. This topic primarily reflects economic issues. Judy Samson’s book entitled Chiapas Today encompasses many of the issues of Globalization and how they have impacted the Maya of Chiapas. The Harvard Press published the book in 2002. Ms. Samson did most of her fieldwork for the book in 2000. This writing is a critique of the work by Ms. Samson. In this review, I will first offer the reader a thorough summary of Chiapas Today, with an emphasis on Chapter Two entitled “Chamula.” The second portion of the review will offer criticisms of Ms. Samson’s book with a laudatory section on her view of global economics. A section on some of the weaker aspects of the writing will be discussed at this point in the review with particularly comments on the structure and the organization of the book. I will close the review with my own opinion of globalization and peasant populations in light of the economics of our first world economy.
This introduction tells any academic reader what this paper is about. The writer can now take this paragraph as an outline and being to construct the paper. So, you now can think of building a paper. Construct your introductory paragraph by telling the reader the purpose of the paper YOU are writing. Give the reader information on what you will cover in order to accomplish your purpose and the sequence in which the reader will encounter the information. After this information, build the body of the paper topic, by topic, thoroughly covering what you said you would cover in your introduction. Now you build a paragraph (or two) of conclusion in which you very briefly mention some of the highlights of what the reader read. Remember, the title can be thought of as the shortest summary.

The final piece to a piece of formal academic writing is the documentation. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT! You must cite your sources internally. Everything you learned, acquired, found, researched, and quoted from someone else, YOU MUST STATE THIS OR DOCUMENT THIS. E.G. According to Ainsworth & Bell (1972)…or …In the research by Burkowsky (1989), he states that…. Just having a name at the end of each paragraph is not sufficient. If it is your idea you are writing, say so, e.g. In my opinion…. You also, of course need a bibliography of all references you used. Finally, when in doubt, always ask for help.

When you write the review you should follow the following outline.

BUT DO NOT USE outline HEADLINES.
You are writing a review that should read smoothly.
What is below is merely an outline of the review you are writing. This is how YOUR review will be structured. This is a generic outline for a formal review typically used in many peer reviewed journals.
1.Your introduction. Your first paragragh. This should be modeled after the one provided in the instructions.

2. The summary of the book you are reviewing. This should be a thorough summary so that the purpose of the author (of the paper you are reviewing) is made clear as well as sufficient academic information from the work is made available to me (the reader.) So while you may not review every chapter in DETAIL, you need to let the reader (me) know about ALL the chapters and then pick one or two to go into detail. It might be several paragraphs.

3. The weak points of the book you are reviewing. This should be a seperate and distinct section and should have examples given so to support concrete any statement you make.

4. The strong points of the book. This should be a seperate and distinct section and should have examples as well.

5. Your opinion on any subject that the book you are reviewing touches on. This should be a seperate and distinct section , perhaps with some examples and not be just a few sentences.

6. A brief conclusion or summary of your review that is a seperate and distinct section and should include an idea for the next piece of research that should be done to continue the research in the book you reviewed.

Internal citations (inside your review)

Any time you write in a formal paper, the reader has to be clear as to where you got your information. When you review, you USUALLY HAVE TWO SOURCES: the article you are reviewing and yourself. So you will often say things such as …According to the authors… Barnett and Hyde mentioned in their introduction that Freud said ….. or… In my opinion…I believe….

If the author of the paper you are reviewing cites SOMEONE ELSE (lets say Freud) THEIR paper, you must make it clear to the reader (me) that you did not read the original article Freud wrote, that you read a mention of Freud in the article you are reviewing. Hence, you would say, “According to the authors, Jones and Smith, Freud often stated that women were unhappy.”

If you use some other source, such as your text book, you might state something…

“Children are often looking for approval (Berger, 2004)” Berger is the text book with the date.
APA does NOT USE PAGE NUMBERS!!!!!!!! Do not use MLA citation format.

External Citations (this is your workcited page)

Put all your references that you actually read and cited inside your review.

Usually you will have only the paper you reviewed, and one or two others.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂