created.

ungrammatical

ungrammatical

it's

lead

what are called "functional foods."

but more importantly, what are "functional foods"? Is this something your reader should already know? Is this a term Scrinis is using, or an industry term, or what?

space after comma

our

co-opted,

space after colon

states, "the

it's

what is nutritionism? this needs to be defined first because your reader doesn't know what that refers to

no period after the title of the article. also, throughout your summary you need a space between every period and the following sentence.

Does this contradict what's traditionally thought? It may in part, but you should be more specific.

this issue isn't modern, it's been going on since at least the beginning of recorded history.

but either way, what does this article specifically contribute to that?

authors

unclear

authors'

such as?

vague

gender isn't an argument

This is a word-for-word reproduction of the article with no quotation marks or page number citation. Please correct immediately.

authors

detail

how is the lens different and the understanding deeper? I agree with this point but it's not well laid out in this paragraph.

sentiment

I'm not sure the author is saying there's a cause-effect relationship between being anti-capitalist and switching to sustainable agriculture

important to this article is that those skills are traditionally taught or assigned only to cisgendered men (761)

reword this

this comma should be a period or a semicolon; it separates two complete sentences

does it show this? This particular quote makes it sound like Drew doesn't really care

should be a period or a colon, otherwise this is a run-on sentence

research; not really an experiment

that

which?

who/what is "they" referring to?

unclear by this point what this call to action is

sustainable?

Should be in quotation marks rather than italicized.

Is she really making this prescriptive claim?

The closest thing to a prescriptive/ethical stance was when she says the Fruitlands story"also encourages us to remember that hierarchy is not merely theoretical. Real, radical change depends on our ability to carefully examine our interpersonal relationships alongside our theoretical ones" (42). I didn't see any claims about why one should/shouldn't be vegan

this sentence is a bit unclear

I don't see how this second sentence follows from the first. I suppose it does if one assumes that all religion is necessarily oppressive...

Animal?

?

not a grammatical sentence

Is this a comparison Cooper makes?

Does Cooper make this comparison to breakfast being quick in the US?

In a summary you should avoid covering topics and opinions not specifically discussed by the author.

no need for page number citations throughout, unless you're making a direct quotation

scandalous!

run-on sentence

but this is a good start to showing how brand distinction is important. make it more clear in the following paragraphs that the scientific evidence on good fats and med. diet etc are part of brand distinction and capitalist success etc.

distinguish

The evidence you review above doesn't give an indication of how she does this.

It's true that these are all things that producers claim and Meneley talks about, but they aren't part of the argument she's making. So if they're included in your summary that should be more clear.

Same for the next paragraph.

no need for this throughout. If you do include it, do it only once after the first mention of her name above

this whole sentence is a bit long and doesn't quite work. maybe break up by starting a new sentence here "Leslie offers insights into issues of land acquisition..."

this comma should be after "Agriculture"

arguably

but why "arguably" here? Is someone arguing differently? If so make that explicit somewhere below.

Minor critique, but it's less than ideal to have "critical engagement..." be the subject/actor in this sentence, the thing doing the facilitating. You might say "Leslie's work was facilitated by" or better yet "Leslie employed participant observation etc."

can we be sure what his intentions were? it's great to make this critique, but (imho, at least) more difficult to necessarily locate the oversight in terms of the author's intentions...

again avoid "I think" but here it might be a more "charitable interpretation" to say he doesn't address race (he might have thought about it but not written it in this article).

But you're so right about this. It's very strange/questionable that he says nothing about race in this article!

Avoid "I believe"...you can just say "the author's account is..." Okay to add "in my opinion" if you want to make that more explicit, but we know it's what you believe since you're writing it.

by whom?

Might be helpful here to point out that they do also recognize (and attempt to resolve) some contradiction in that they're engaged in a business that reqiures competition, some accumulation of capital, etc.,

or perhaps "more often than heterosexual farmers tended to explicitly articulate an interest"

sustainable?

when who was discussing? Leslie? His farmer informants?

What is "this" referring to? If to the previous sentence, I'm not sure I see the logical relationship

right... but one thing, is Leslie really saying that this causes masculine identified queer people to gravitate more to farming than other queer folks? (because wouldn't that kindof be heterosexist in itself?)

perhaps more importantly, this sentence isn't quite clear and doesn't convey the argument that the preference for farming is about agency. And that the job tasks question relates to heterosexist exclusion from opportunities to master certain skills. Leslie says: "Although queer and heterosexual farmers expressed similar lifestyle motivations to farm, queer farmers also articulated gender- and sexuality-specific reasons related to individual agency, including farmer dress and gender presentation, seclusion on the farm, and the mastery of diverse skills often reserved for cisgender men" (763, my emphasis)

gravitated

by whom? avoid passive voice in cases like this

are dress and tasks the things doing the action here of giving preference?

this isn't clear, and not sure this is exactly what Leslie is saying...

are gender expressions really doing the exploring here?

shown?

space before open paren

perhaps something like "but microaggressions were common" also the fact that these came from people that the queer farmers needed, economically, to interact with in order to keep their farms going seems like an important point the author is making

[edit] nevermind: see that you address this later

economic

omit

not sure this is the right word...banal maybe? although homophobia is neither drab nor banal, really

presumption?

a period or semicolon here would help break up this long sentence

not as common as they expected might be more precise way to put this

not familiar with this term. injustices?

might specify here acquiring through intergenerational transfer? if that's what you're referring to?

farming?

don't need the year every time. we know which article you're referring to from the citation at the bottom

or person

its

I also don't see where she makes this point.

I don't see where she says something like this

Is this an argument Hinton makes?

This is generally counter to the fundamental ideas of linguistic anthropology and this article in particular.

what connection to gender? and is this really surprising? also it sounds like you're saying the gender thing relates to Alim and Smitherman?

That's almost definitely true, but why is this topic important to bring attention to?

not a grammatical sentence

yes, but how?

It's much more specific than this, though. For example, they say "Our raciolinguistic approach draws from Inoue’s work by refusing to center the analysis on attempts to document the empirical linguistic practices of racialized subjects, and instead interrogating the interpretive and categorizing practices of racially hegemonic perceiving subjects" (628).

unclear

who is this? Is this something any reader of your summary would know?

this term is specific to this article (and Rosa's other work), so it needs to be defined in your summary

America?

colonialism

You don't need to give the title of the sections in a summary; just summarize them.

Is it clear only because of the titles?

"sounds black."

Obama's

H. Samy Alim and Geneva Smitherman

in which they discuss?

doesn't make sense

authors

detail

should be in quotes and in title case

no need to cite page here, you can just say "as Martin points out" or something like that.

yes--this is better than "essentializing" them

good point, but a bit vague as to the impacts of this specific article. also this sentence isn't grammatical and doesn't make sense

isn't this more like anthropomorphizing than essentializing?

not totally clear how this is an example of exactly what Martin is talking about

has

unclear

unclear

phenomena

missing a question mark in title

This is not a claim Eckert is making.

This is approaching a run-on sentence. Also, is Eckert really talking about "personality" here?

You are onto something though about the different groups' orientation toward different futures!

omit

This isn't clear. Also I'm not sure this reflect Eckert's argument

with, which

or:

with. This

omit

This is less an example than a description of her entire research project

Avoid "I think" etc. Your reader can assume you think this because you're writing it.

omit this word

is Eckert saying the jocks aren't doing what they want?

need either a period or semicolon here to separate two complete sentences

omit "while"; that makes this an incomplete sentence

are seen by whom? the researcher? themselves? their parents? others?

No, she begins by using class as an example of something she thought would be important before she started her research, but turned out to be less important than other factors

several things incorrect here. copy and paste from the way it's in the syllabus

don't hedge like this. just say he is saying/doing xyz

hahah, no need to mention this. it's from my assignment info right? I was being a little sarcastic when I wrote that

anthros call them "informants," not informers. but you probably don't need to include this info since it's assumed or implied that he has informants since that's where he got his information

this is vague

have?

proves?

this is vague. could be said about almost any writing on linguistic anthro

helps us understand?

which individuals?

be more specific

avoid clichés...this is kindof one

this makes it sound a bit like you're suggesting it's meant to do that but fails

every single person everywhere? that's a big claim ;)

you can perhaps omit this; whether people can relate to it isn't as important as whether it's convincing evidence of some claim or argument

closer than what? just "close" is probably okay unless you're comparing it to something else

you have the title wrong here also capitalization of words should match that used in the journal article

no all caps

? study, maybe?

this kindof makes it sound like you're suggesting he fails

is this why? I think it's not specifically grief

all the situations are about uncertainty surrounding the "personal status" of the person to whom one is silent.

your summary here needs to bring this out--it's a major point in the article

if you're courting someone they're probably not your lover yet

This makes it sound like they're not familiar with that idea. But they are, they say that all the white people they know do it. So it's not that they're not used to it, it's that this isn't the Apache way of doing things

refrain

silent, such as

you don't need to cite Basso since that's the only article you're talking about

not really clear about what you're saying here. Is this one of Basso's points?

is this one of his six situations?

which society?

also "ideology" isn't quite the right word here. if you're talking about the Apaches Basso is studying, you might say for example, it's their custom to remain silent until introduced

in different situations and with different people?

This could use a clarification. What Basso is saying in these few paragraphs doesn't quite come across in your description.

actually here he's summarizing the ideas/work of others

be

choose

language: when

or

language—when

or, another option

language, for example when

or

omit

Definitely has by now. Does he say it's received little attention? I don't see where, but he might. If he does, say "which at the time had received little attention" or something like that.

I would either omit this, or add a works cited entry to the article you link to.

this period should be a comma

again...describe isn't quite what they're doing, but much closer than determine. perhaps "indicate"? but important to say it indicates to others (rather than just in general, as if indicating something factual or essential about a person)

strong word, perhaps...

everything??

doesn't make sense here

Anything beyond this? What about, say, it being important to know how class or other distinction operate within a given society?

again this is ever so slightly different than "gives of signals"... seems like a minor difference, but the implications are pretty significant (for anthropologists ;) The way you put it here makes it seem like it demonstrates something factually as opposed to that it's a way by which people evaluate others

yes! exactly. different from "determines" as you say above

omit

this is a little unclear

determine is a strong word. probably more accurate to say they are interpreted by others to indicate one's social status

one's

this sentence isn't grammatically correct without a semicolon between "going" and "however." But more importantly, is this what the author uses this example to show?

The author says "these discourses function to withhold subjectivity from nonwhite residents in small-town communities and shore up the boundaries of whiteness by keeping Latino immigrants scripted into stories... about conflict between demographic groups..." He is saying immigrants are integral to the local economy and society, but I'm not sure he's making an argument about superiority complexes...

connected it to race?

doesn't make sense

Agriprocessors

comma needs to be a period or semicolon; it separates two complete sentences

Christopher Neubert

Postville

This is a repeat of the sentence above.

represented where?

in Postville, Iowa. Postville was a small town

I'm not sure this is quite what Neubert is getting at... he says right after this example "this chapter will...discuss how political geographies are realized not through actions taken by distant politicians engaging in statecraft through legislation or nation building but through the messy, difficult everyday relationships that shape and are shaped by discourses of the nation-state."

This is an important point, but it's more than that Prestage "believed" racism was a concern, they publicly "accused 'kooks' of stirring up racial tensions, and claimed that 'racism is alive and well in Mason City'" according to the author.

Mason