should be

in Mason City, Iowa, in

Good

this doesn't make sense

omit

no period after title, and space between end quote and "by"

technically this is a chapter, not an article

?

this is pretty vague. seems like it's important more because it says something surprising about how that change came about

Okay, yes, this is a good restatement what the author (Mintz) is saying

run on sentence and also is "laziness" what the author is saying here?

seems like a minor point? but if you include, don't just say the author says how this happens. you need to say how it happened, according to the author

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

I'm not sure "farm" is the right word here... but more importantly, there are many other important things Mintz points out that also are part of why sugar becomes used daily by Europeans...

no space here before period

period after "labor"

began, production

this comma is separating two complete sentences, so it should be a semicolon or a period. so:

low; however, when

not sure what this means

This is semi-formal writing, so don't use slashes like this

"even" doesn't seem right here. also, when summarizing you don't need to say the author "speaks about" something, you can just say something like "the author describes" or just "the author says"

Is this quotation necessary? This could probably have been paraphrased

should be:

For instance, "during...

what do you mean here by the period of expedition?

Everywhere you use "she" it should be "he" because it's referring to Mintz

I believe you're actually summarizing Time, Sugar, and Sweetness here? Food and Culture is the name of this entire book.

This is actually a chapter written by Sidney Mintz (Counihan is the editor of the book). Also this quotation is from page 92. so should be:

foods" (92).

not sure what "the interests of the world economy" means...?

this should be either mid 18th century (if you're talking about the 1750s) or mid-1800s.

reformat title of blog post to be in format specified by the assignment

Delete this

should be

such as food, which

this doesn't quite make sense

very well put

it might be more clear to say:

the royals and nobles, which shifted [or increased] the demand for sugar, thus changing...

when you say "claims" and "tries" here it sounds like you're about to disagree with him. If you're not, you could just say "Mintz's research focuses on the relationship..."

and then in the next sentence "he analyzes how the working people..."

This is a pretty strong claim. I'm not sure Mintz would totally agree? But he would say that changing consumption patterns correlate with changes in class structure

This is a crucial point, and a great observation. It would help to say a bit more about those policies. Maybe just one brief example?

Say Mintz here instead of he because you haven't mentioned him in a while so it's not entirely clear who this refers to

this isn't clear. a new ingestible?

This should either be

Revolution, as well as the introduction of new ingestible, meant

or

Revolution as well as the introduction of new ingestible meant

precisely!!!

?

maybe through other parts of society?

maybe an early feature or something like that? they're less an early form than something that creates the conditions for the industrial revolution. but very good observation

Not sure what you're saying here. Wouldn't high demand increase price?

This sentence isn't clear

either

lost control over...

or

lost the control they once had over...

either

United States and England

or

United States, as well as England

a first luxury?

Good summary, but sentence is missing something

no comma here

Why? The why of this is what this text is all about.

careful with wording here. This isn't so much Mintz's belief, it's his argument. And to say it "sounds" accurate makes it sound like you're not certain if it is. You don't have to actually be certain, but your summary should make it sound like you are.

This is exactly what Mintz is not saying. His argument is that sugar did not become part of daily routine because we need it, because it's natural to crave it, etc., etc.

Sugar consumption increased because it fit well in the global expansion of capitalism.

Avoid "I believe" statements. But also this statement doesn't make sense...we do need sugar to live (though not necessarily in its highly processed form).

But in any case, your summary doesn't need to evaluate his argument in terms of your beliefs, it should evaluate it in terms of whether the evidence he gives logically proves his argument. (And note that his argument is not about the "natural" preference for sugar.)

These sentences are true, but they're really not important for the main point of this article, which is that sugar consumption increases as a result of changes wrought by the expansion of global capitalism.

See for example page 99 where he talks about jam:

"Jam, when produced on a factory basis and consumed with bread, provides an efficient, calorie-high and relatively cheap means of feeding people quickly, wherever they are. It fits well with changes in the rhythm of effort, the organisation of the family, and, perhaps, with new ideas about the relationship between ingestion and time" (99, my emphasis).

Is this right? The monarchs could have afforded anything so they probably didn't develop ways to afford more of it

Jam is one of the ways Mintz says sugar become more frequently consumed by commoners, rather than the privileged.

Overall I think what you're getting at is probably correct, but this needs to be reworded to make that clear

yes. Why and how this happened are crucial to Mintz's argument though, and we don't get a sense of that here

very important part of his evidence here. nice. you might expand on why this is important to his overall argument and perhaps cut out some of the other detail you give in this paragraph

this is kindof a run-on sentence as written

not the right word. maybe "supports"?

great. excellent summary of the argument he makes here

Since this is a new sentence, And should be capitalized, but I'm not sure this is appropriate for a summary. You might say "this is true" if you had expertise on the changing food production conditions in 18th century England, but otherwise in a summary we want to avoid making explicit claims about how true the authors's evidence is (unless we ourselves are experts).

This needs a page number citation.

It should look like this:

elsewhere" (100).

Right! This is specifically saying that it's not an evolutionary thing, it's about changing working conditions, family dynamics, etc., etc.

He does mention this argument, but it's not his main point. I wouldn't say he necessarily disagrees with it, but he's definitely saying this isn't what explains the massive increase during the 18th century in sugar consumption

okay! this is a very good point. but I don't get any sense from the rest of your summary what Mintz has said that might point us to these topics of relevance today....??

what points? you haven't really told your reader what these are

okay, but the reason we should think about sugar isn't simply because its history is "flawed." No history is somehow more or less flawed, it's just history. The question Mintz is asking is, what can the history of sugar teach us??

deduced

but what are those arguments? The way it's written here it sounds like you're saying the only argument is that sugar consumption increased and/or that sugar's history should be viewed as a complex social phenomenon involving many people and both production and consumption. The latter is more accurate, but you don't let your reader know how or why Mintz arrives as this assertion

said, the

his

,

Mintz doesn't put "New World" in quotes. I think I get why you're doing it, but if so, just do it once, then the rest of the time you can just say New World without quotes.

sugar's

I think I get what you're saying here, but this phrase needs to be reworded

sugar's

should be:

the world, particularly England, was

i'm not sure he's "hinting" at this...he's saying it. but this is actually not part of his overall argument, it's more like part of his evidence. the argument is more about why people become obsessed with sugar/sweetness, or why its use grows so dramatically--and how that phenomenon is part of the global history of capitalism

it's unclear what "it" this "its" refers to... sugar? production? consumption?

outpaced

usually past tense is better when writing a summary and describing the author's evidence/assertions

either

increased consumption

or, better yet

increase in consumption

say that the

use either "society" or "culture" here. civilization has connotations that you don't want to evoke in this context

not necessary in this case

Lots of mistakes in this citation. Just copy directly from the class syllabus

?? why is this here?

technically this is a chapter, not an article. but to keep it simple and not have to fix all this, just say something like "In "Time, Sugar, and Sweetness," Sidney Mintz dives...

Food and Culture should be capitalized. Also the way you put this it makes it sound like the whole book is by Mintz, but it's technically an edited volume. I might just leave out the reference to F&C because your reader can figure that out from the citation at the end.

Therefore suggests that what you've just said is proof that mastering table manners is important... but how you've just shown that isn't clear. Also unless this is an argument Cooper is making, it's not appropriate for a summary.

Is this something Cooper is saying?

According to whom? Is this an argument Cooper makes?

The word "elegance" has a lot of connotations that I'm not sure are part of what Cooper is saying...

not sure what this means

What is "it" here? Table manners?

I would use a different phrase here. Rather than "meant to be" perhaps say "organized around the principles of" or something similar

this isn't clear; you say "because" but I don't understand how this is related to the guest eating too much rice

put this (and any other Chinese words) in italics

also tell your reader what ts'ai is

the word after each semicolon shouldn't be capitalized

excellent summary

this needs some additional detail as to why this is important to his argument

interesting idea, but in what way are these microcosms? and it might be more appropriate to say "culture" rather than "civilization"

is this an argument Cooper is making?

is this an argument Cooper is making? I don't see where he does that

this is unclear

should be

propriety."

known by whom? where did this quote come from?

I don't think this is what the authors are saying

The authors are specifically saying the children don't have authority, even if they have agency

Avoid clichés.

you've used this term twice now, but the authors never use it in reference to the children they study...?

No comma after article or Sánchez. The title of the article should be in quotes, not italics, and in "title case" as it is in your citation.

Is this a concern the authors discuss?

But I think the authors are saying specifically that the children still don't have the "power" or authority in this situation. They're still objects of surveillance

You never mention surveillance here, and you touch on it only briefly above. But isn't that a major point of the article?

perhaps but I think the paradox is much more about the fact that children "have power" in this situation yet that's never recognized and they're still evaluated as if they're children with no power

one

don't capitalize

run-on sentence

in?

teachers is plural but figure is singular and the verb is singular

whose

?

this doesn't work grammatically with the first part of the sentence

don't capitalize after a semicolon

this seems to me to be a technical term from the article. If it is, you should note that, and note why the authors use the term

why capitalized?

comma instead of semicolon; also don't capitalize after semicolon

?

There are three authors

The title here isn't correct, although that's because it's not correct on the materials page (sorry, that wasn't me ;)

okay, this is a good start, but why are they trying to show signing varies by region, ethnicity, etc.? what does that say about (sign) language? and why does that disprove the "myths" they start out with? check out the conclusion, it might offer some clues as to the bigger picture

avoid hedging like this, even if you're not really sure yourself. but if you're giving a summary, you want to try to at least sound like you know what the authors are doing ;)

authors

Avoid passive voice. Say "the authors explain"

separated? from whom?

in what way? this is too vague

which is what? You haven't made it totally clear what they are arguing... providing evidence isn't the same as making an argument

unclear, reword this

who is them here?

not necessary to cite the text's sources...but if you do, you need to list this source at the end of your summary

signer, which

I'm not sure they say gender variation "comes from" this Irish Sign Language, they just say it's an example of clear gender distinction

comes

One other example? the only one you give in this sentence is gender variation

This is a relevant comparison, but as you've phrased it, it's not appropriate for a summary. Something like this could go at the end where you talk about the contribution of the text, but do so in an "objective" way that's not framed specifically in terms of your own experience

who is "they" here? try to reword for clarity

adults, usually

no comma here

put this in quotes or otherwise distinguish so it's clearer to your reader

this is unclear

cut this word

no citations necessary throughout unless you're using a direct quote

language, which

title is incorrect

title is incorrect

Title is incorrect

You have the title incorrect

unclear

made

run on sentence

here you have an incomplete sentence. you could fix this by changing the period before it to a comma

the authors prove, or the authors demonstrate

are sign variations

no need to refer to the figures in the text, since we can't see them. you can just say "the authors demonstrate that the word..."

maybe "significant" or "important"?

another comma separating two complete sentences

not sure we need a percentage here, but if so it should go after "many children"

on

technically this is a chapter, not an article

italicize titles of books

unclear

yes, but isn't Blommaert saying something different from this? like that language is something by which other people make judgments and sometimes those have serious consequences...and those judgments are based on outmoded ideas about not only language, but national borders etc

Not sure what this means....

again, this is meaningless unless you've described what Blommaert is referring to by these terms. I'd suggest avoiding this phrase altogether and paraphrasing what you think it means

I'm not sure this is quite accurate. Isn't part of the thing that he can speak some languages more fluently than the Home Office assumed he'd be able to based on where he was from?

Okay, this is a good way to point out that what Blommaert is talking about is relevant on a larger scale, but you need to say more here about what makes this situation similar to the one Joseph experienced

missing a word

missing a word

This is good, but maybe it should go nearer to the beginning. Or at least make sure to define language repertoire before this quote

okay, but why is that interesting or important for anyone who's not migrating or concerned with asylum seekers to know? what about the phenomenon Blommaert is talking about is relevant in a broad sense, beyond the context just of the article?

who is they? and whose "claims of origin" are these?

this direct quote either needs more explanation as to context or should be paraphrased

this doesn't make sense

not sure what this means

if you mention details like this you need to give the reader more info. most people don't know what these languages are and why their difference is important. but I'm also not sure this level of detail is necessary for a summary

what are them? language repertoires?

not sure this is the right word. raised maybe?

again this needs to be defined, it's a technical term

So, this is what's important about Joseph's backstory; you might condense what's above into one or two short sentences and then just say that the rough life Joseph had led to his unusual proficiency in certain languages, etc.

what is it? the documents? do documents talk?

this is a technical term. needs to be defined or explained in your summary

where? in what country? a reader who hasn't read this article won't know

Anyone who hasn't read this article has no idea what "the modernist views" are. This definitely needs to be explained if you use this term, though I'm not sure it's really that necessary

run-on sentence

the title of the article needs quotes around it:

In "Language, Asylum and the National Order," Jan Blommaert...

in this context you don't need to refer to it as a reading, you can just say In "Language, Asylum....

unclear again what "it" is

chapter

this is true, but I think Alim and Smitherman are going beyond just showing that it's not incorrect (which others before have shown). They're making an argument about social and political structures

what is the "it" here?