- “I’m curious about why you chose political legitimacy as your theory. It’s not a bad one to pick, and you do a good job of explaining it and why it’s relevant. I’ve just never had someone use that before. You could also have gone with an analysis of an announcement speech, for which there is research literature in the political communication field. I’m not saying you need to change, especially at this date, but I am impressed that you took the road that was probably a little more difficult. It’s your choice, though, and, again, you’ve done a good job of explaining the theory and showing how and why it’s relevant.
- If you stick with this theory, I would recommend some more development of the analysis of the speech according to the theory. Right now you have a couple of examples that illustrate the theory–I would recommend that you double that.
Let me stress–the choice is yours. I don’t think you want to redo the paper entirely, so if you develop the analysis more, you’ll be fine.
One more recommendation: make sure to proofread your paper carefully. In fact, you might want to have someone else (a roommate, a classmate, or even someone at the Writing Lab) also give it a close proofread. This is something I recommend to everyone, including myself. When we’re writing something, we know what’s in our heads and what we mean to say. So sometimes (often) we’re not the best proofreaders of our own work. I didn’t give your paper a close proofread, but I noticed there were some missing words and other minor things that can be cleaned up easily and make the paper that much stronger.”
^^^^ what my professor told me to change in the paper that is attached
so just correct these things