Intense adjectives Harsh -- aggressive

Death -- Orpheus criminal underworld? -- occluded history?

GGGG

Repetition of the "pressing" image -- with a difference: childhood wonder vs. modern harshness

The ocean? Out of place-ness. Displacement Devolution? Regression to the primordial ooze?

Alliteration - dd Negative connotation -- journey to the underworld?

Coming back from the memory Touch the memory Startled by/from the memory?

Foreshadowing the infantry -- orders Fish make the aquarium what it is -- don't get the credit they deserve --connect to epigraph Fish are out of place! Ariticial environments. Fish are cows?

inaccurate -- magical world

bbbb

wonder -- magical

Connotation -- excitement

Simile -- not pleasant -- slimy -- related to aquaria?

Into the past -- memory of childhood.

airy/dry -- goes back to desert -- empty, homogenous, lifeless

Snow-now: repetition with a difference, long O to the short O

B-B

Oxymoron: desert/snow

https://goo.gl/maps/mAzcw7k3uSahDPy76

https://caughtinsouthie.com/features/history-lesson-the-south-boston-aquarium/

Is it really worth having this as a digression? Or would it be better to just make it its own subsequent page in the main stream?

Title Format. Use italics for titles of long & complete works, and quotation marks for titles of short works that are part of something else, e.g. a chapter in a collection or an article in a journal. See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/underline-or-italicize-book-titles/ and https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.

Proof and change throughout.

Reformat with a CMS-style reference; link off the parenthesis.

Not needed. Why would it be?

Marked vs. Blended Quotation Introduction Confusion: Marked: verb of arguing or speaking, comma, capital letter. Smith (2014) argues, "Lorem ipsum dolor..." Blended: any other construction, including "that" constructions, no comma, no capital. Smith (2014) argues that "lorem ipsum dolor..." See https://youtu.be/qMg9ByNj70U.

This sentence lacks a main verb.

Don't link this to Sakai; link it to the WorldCat entry in the PML database.

Plural, not possessive.

When you say things like this, you should be able to follow it with a parenthetical citation that includes all of the references you are talking about.

Pretty sure this is a woman.

Should be possessive.

Also, totally unrelated but I'm putting it here: the image on this page is of really shitty quality. Either make it smaller so the resolution goes up, or find another -- especially since this image isn't topical in any way; wouldn't you do better to have a picture of zombie walk here?

Grammar of this sentence is messed up. Reword.

It seems like you should also be able to cite these Facebook pages as documents in your References page, which means you should be able to give them inline citations here.

It seems wrong to describe this as a "cross over." This isn't about zombie walks branching out into non-related domains of culture; you are just describing what they do, how they work, and what they mean.

Overstatement. All aspects of everyday culture?

What is not at all represented here, and what would have been an easy research get for you -- which I have been recommending all semester -- is all of the popular press journalism ABOUT V&V. Quick Google searches reveal a host of articles that summarize the book in popular publications like Scientific American, PBS, etc. Since your object of analysis in a literature review is the literature, it wouldn't be hard to write a page about the popular reception of V&V -- basically just narrating that they got all this press coverage, they were talked about in certain ways, etc. It's just an account of the splash they made.

That's thematically pretty simplistic, but given that this is a research class, where one of the key skills being assessed is your ability to do find relevant sources, I would think you would want to show that off as much as possible -- instead of the five measly sources you have here, none of which demonstrate that you've even got near the databases we discussed at the beginning of the term.

All links on this page should be active.

Not CMS format, and not written in 2019. The Stanford Encyclopedia always gives you publication/citation information at the bottom of the page.

This page shouldn't be separate. Incorporate it into this page. I mean, they both have the same image on them. And given the lack of research you have on this subject, there is no reason for you to have two pages, when incorporating that one into this page can help you have more working sources. Take all the text and add it here; edit as needed; then delete the original page.

None of this is sourced, and it certainly doesn't give us a review of the literature on the zombie problem -- not even a superficial treatment beyond one source that you found online. To do this justice, you would need to look at the writings of Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers, at the least.

That's not the zombie problem. It's a related thought experiment about consciousness, but it's not the particle for particle replica.

Write out numbers under 100.

Where is this from? You aren't attributing your sources.

Hyperlinking.

Conceivability is pretty deep in the zombie debate, and you haven't even gotten the basic terms out yet. You would do better to focus on the basic premise of the argument.

Capitalization. There is just a lot that is rough on these pages; they need a thorough editing for basic features of grammar and punctuation.

No comma. Why would there be one?

Word Choice. That's not what "mindfulness" means. You are ultimately talking about self-consciousness, the ability of the mind to reflect upon itself.

This is a weird transition. I think you would do better to frame this more like: While we have been focusing on zombies and the brain, philosophers have used zombies to debate a related question about consciousness.

Should be capitalized, like all titles.

Would it be worth using section headings to make these divisions more visually evident?

Existential passive construction isn't helping. How "are there" language deficits?

Given that this seems like a list of symptoms that are linked to regions of the brain, could we do with with another brain map?

This is vague. It doesn't give me a very good sense of what is actually going to be on the page, and the language below isn't helping, since this seems like another laundry list.

There are no references on this page. Even if this is all just V&V, it should be cited with pages or page ranges. Any idea that is not yours should be attributed.

Not sure if these terms need to be capitalized, as they are not proper names so much as designations. Check your source material.

Not a CMS citation.

Comma Splice. Use a semicolon or a conjunction in lieu of a comma, or split into two sentences. See https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/commas/extended_rules_for_commas.html.

Should be hyperlinked.

Not a CMS entry.

Given that you've titled this page "Anatomy of the Brain," I think you either need to explain how the zombie brain tells us things about the human brain, or you need to rename the page to make it clear that this is a zombie brain. Either way, you probably need some additional header information to provide context.

Maybe something here at the end to indicate what is to come. It's sort of strange to end with this example, without telling us that there is more of this to come.

Spelling.

Vague.

Your wording here makes it sound like this is a real disorder. It's not. You need to make it clear that they have invented a disease here -- it's a fictional postulate.

Needs to be hyperlinked to the WorldCat entry.

All journal titles should be italicized.

Title Format. Use italics for titles of long & complete works, and quotation marks for titles of short works that are part of something else, e.g. a chapter in a collection or an article in a journal. See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/underline-or-italicize-book-titles/ and https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.

All of your hyperlinks should be active. They need https:// headers, and the need to be hyperlinked.

I think it goes further than this. I take it that the argument is something like: Agamben is devaluing the real, concrete, historical people who endured the Holocaust (those who survived and those who didn't) in favor of an abstracted "survivor" who serves as a disembodied site at which an abstract "testimony" emanates. Not real people speaking their truths, but a particular subject position making arguments in ethics.

Argument ≠ intention to do something; it's the something.

Mismodified. Reword.

That's not a criticism. That's an empirical fact that is not at all intrinsic to Agamben. It's literally true of all writing.

What does this mean?

Oh jeez. This is that kind of nonsense theory that circles around people like Agamben like little birds on a hippo. It's hard to do much with this. But you can be evaluative, and acknowledge the density, perhaps even the quadi-bullshit of this kind of criticism.

Who? Parenthetical reference should go here.

These formulations seem vague if you are unable to back them up.

This isn't quite right. It's more like: the question of witnessing (anything) is necessarily an ethical question of obligation, truthfulness, fidelity, etc. What do these concepts mean in the case of the Holocaust, those who survived, and those who didn't? It's wrong to call it "his set of ethics" because ethics make a universal demand -- they are not subject to relativism. But it's also not right to say "the ethics of Holocaust testimony." It's more like he's asking: What does the problem of testimony that the Holocaust creates mean for ethics?

List all authors.

I don't think there is anyone who thinks there is "good" biopower. No one speaks approvingly of it, so the entire line of argumentation that this literature review is looking at the dark side seems misguided, because it presumes there is a good side.

For whom?

Vague.

What does this mean? What is "negative image"?

What are these? Not clear from context.

Marked vs. Blended Quotation Introduction Confusion: Marked: verb of arguing or speaking, comma, capital letter. Smith (2014) argues, "Lorem ipsum dolor..." Blended: any other construction, including "that" constructions, no comma, no capital. Smith (2014) argues that "lorem ipsum dolor..." See https://youtu.be/qMg9ByNj70U.

Needs a year reference.

Vague. Either explain the different ways or reformulate. And the second half of the sentence is kind of meaningless -- at best, it's a cliché.

Do you understand the distinction that Foucault is making here: this is politics acting upon the biological organism, rather than the habits and practices of our shared life in a society.

Title Format. Use italics for titles of long & complete works, and quotation marks for titles of short works that are part of something else, e.g. a chapter in a collection or an article in a journal. See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/underline-or-italicize-book-titles/ and https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.

This kind of stuff isn't worth quoting. It's just a statement of intention. You need to be quoting what comes out of this inquiry -- the destination, not the jumping-off point.

I don't understand this illustration. Use the captioning fields to explain it and its relevance.

This is good, but you might want to incorporate Agamben's quotation from Foucault of the purpose of the modern state is to make live and let die. His whole gloss on that gets at his vision of biopolitics in as pithy a form as you are going to find.

Word Choice. This misunderstands what "philosophy" is. It's not an opinion, and it's not personal. It makes a claim on truth and demands your assent.

This is so bland. You are clearly staying away from doing more than announcing topics because you don't feel comfortable representing these arguments. But that's exactly what you've got to do, and I'd rather see you be bold and take a stab at it than just write these nothing descriptions.

This rhetoric is so descriptive. Reframe this as an account of her argument: Further, Enns endorses Agamben's suggestion that "power no longer has any form of legitimization other than emergency," essentially contending that governmental power no longer functions to support human flourishing, trade, or even security, but only to suspend the very law it creates, and thus to operate outside of its own sphere.

This is not a helpful gloss on the limited quotation you have provided. What makes it abstract? What is unclear? You need to give a more specific accounting of Lewis's argument here.

Marked vs. Blended Quotation Introduction Confusion: Marked: verb of arguing or speaking, comma, capital letter. Smith (2014) argues, "Lorem ipsum dolor..." Blended: any other construction, including "that" constructions, no comma, no capital. Smith (2014) argues that "lorem ipsum dolor..." See https://youtu.be/qMg9ByNj70U.

Hendiadys. You are using two terms to describe one thing. While this can be used for emphasis, you are just searching for the right term. Pick one. See http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/H/hendiadys.htm.

Again, change throughout.

Marked vs. Blended Quotation Introduction Confusion: Marked: verb of arguing or speaking, comma, capital letter. Smith (2014) argues, "Lorem ipsum dolor..." Blended: any other construction, including "that" constructions, no comma, no capital. Smith (2014) argues that "lorem ipsum dolor..." See https://youtu.be/qMg9ByNj70U.

Wordy, repetitive.

You have a lot of room to tighten your formulations throughout. There is just a lot here that is throat-clearing: long formulations to say very simple things.

Hendiadys. You are using two terms to describe one thing. While this can be used for emphasis, you are just searching for the right term. Pick one. See http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/H/hendiadys.htm.

Single Quotation Marks Within Double Quotation Marks. For example: Bob told us, "Fred said, 'Let's go for a walk,' and so we did."

This is not a "further" insofar as it is not a continuation of Eaglestone's critique.

I believe Muselmann is singular, and the plural is Muselmänner. So you can use the singular to refer to the type, and the plural when you are referring to a population.

Avoid "the author" formulations. Just name him -- treat him like a real, speaking person that you are engaged in a conversation with.

This is a sentence fragment. The quotation introduces the grammatical subject of the sentence, but then there is no main verb.

Single Quotation Marks Within Double Quotation Marks. For example: Bob told us, "Fred said, 'Let's go for a walk,' and so we did."

Worth quoting?

Agreement. Verb doesn't agree with noun. See https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/subject_verb_agreement.html.

Hendiadys. You are using two terms to describe one thing. While this can be used for emphasis, you are just searching for the right term. Pick one. See http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/H/hendiadys.htm.

Do you mean this literally or politically?

This sentence contradicts the previous sentence, and it is also incorrect, because the whole point is that the German state did lay claim to zoē, to determining what counts as life.

For God's sake, get this right. It's right there on the page for you in Homo Sacer and you seem unable to spell it correctly. You demonstrate that you are paying attention to the text by actually paying attention to the text. Zoē is always singular because it describes an aspect, it should be italicized, and the e should have a macron over it (yes, you will need to figure out how to make a macron). It's just a matter of care and attentiveness -- that you take this material seriously enough to get it right.

There is a lot that is problematic in this account.

1. I think it's wrong to say that bare life "includes" zoē and bios. It would be more accurate to say that bare life is politicized zoē -- it is what happens when sovereignty lays its hands on natural life.
2. Insofar as zoē is biological life, there is no sense in the phrase "can be examined under the lens of."
3. There is no sense in which bios is the "negation" of zoē. They are simply different aspects -- different ways of talking about a human life. They reflect different domains or spheres of existence.
4. The last sentence incorrectly uses the semicolon, which can only be used to separate two independent clauses.

This doesn't make any sense grammatically. The referent for "it" is "politics," but that can't be the agent of "structures the argument." Just slow down and streamline your prose -- more subject-verb-object sentences. Remember our lesson about nominalizations as a way to make your prose more clear.

This sounds like something from a source. Cite it if so, even if it is a paraphrase.

argues that the Musselmann is the "true witness" to the camps

Hendiadys. You are using two terms to describe one thing. While this can be used for emphasis, you are just searching for the right term. Pick one. See http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/H/hendiadys.htm.

Go through and remove all places where you use two terms to mean one thing. It's a problematic rhetorical habit.

Italicize titles, just like you would in a paper. Do this throughout.

Also, you need a parenthetical year citation any time you mention a text.

Vague. Just describe the arguments.

Hendiadys. You are using two terms to describe one thing. While this can be used for emphasis, you are just searching for the right term. Pick one. See http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/H/hendiadys.htm.

Should include a place name, as per CMS.

If this is a book, as it appears to be, then just cite the book, not the chapter (assuming Mirgani is the only author. If she is only the author of the chapter, then you need an editor.

If this is a journal issue, it needs a volume/issue number.

I don't really understand this page. It seems like it is sort of odds and ends, and I don't see how "popular culture" is an umbrella term for it. Consider whether to break this up into separate pages -- one on film editing and one on whatever the later part is about -- or reframing it, or assimilating it to one of your other pages.

This is a premise, not a conclusion. You aren't representing the important part of her argument, which would have to do with "apathy and sloth." Quote that part of her claim.

This is a QUOTATION from the article. It MUST be quoted and cited or you are PLAGIARIZING.

Awkward sentence, for the repetition. Reword.

Title Format. Use italics for titles of long & complete works, and quotation marks for titles of short works that are part of something else, e.g. a chapter in a collection or an article in a journal. See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/underline-or-italicize-book-titles/ and https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.

I don't understand this.

Block Quotation Format: 4+ lines, 0.5" left indent, no quotation marks, citation goes after the final period. See http://liu.cwp.libguides.com/c.php?g=45846&p=291625.

There has got to be a way to indent as well. You could always use a different header style to change the size of the font here.

Title Format. Use italics for titles of long & complete works, and quotation marks for titles of short works that are part of something else, e.g. a chapter in a collection or an article in a journal. See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/underline-or-italicize-book-titles/ and https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.

These references also need parenthetical citations. Any time you mention a title, there should be a parenthetical year reference.

This link doesn't open a new window, which it should.

1. This is just the introduction to a section; it's not an article -- hardly worth quoting as a work.
2. The title would just be "Capitalist Monsters."

You have inserted ALL of these images incorrectly. It looks like you are doing them with links, rather than with the "Insert Inline Scalar Link" function. Recode them all.

I don't see that in your evidence. Reframe the claim.

You can get the clip on YouTube where they find the mall: "one of those new shopping malls..." Show it with evidence rather than just talking about it.

Not much of a quotation. This is, at best, just the claim, but really it is just an announcement of the topic.

This is obvious. Sentence says nothing.

Steven remarks,

and then quote the dialogue instead of paraphrasing it.

Any time you refer to an article like this, it should be followed by a parenthetical reference with a link. Standardize throughout.

Should be a colon. Introduce lists with a colon.

No reason for apostrophes in these formulations. Not possessive. Remove throughout.

Worth linking to something here. Could be a good popup.

Marked vs. Blended Quotation Introduction Confusion: Marked: verb of arguing or speaking, comma, capital letter. Smith (2014) argues, "Lorem ipsum dolor..." Blended: any other construction, including "that" constructions, no comma, no capital. Smith (2014) argues that "lorem ipsum dolor..." See https://youtu.be/qMg9ByNj70U.

Citation placement.

Spelling.

This paragraph doesn't do much for you. It's not an "overall" -- you aren't summarizing so much as repeating here. Second, the second sentence is inaccurate, as "the average businessman" is not the target audience of the mall. The third sentence is good, but could be incorporated into one of the earlier paragraphs.

Not clear from context who this is. The link can't do all of the work for you. You need to add the author's name to the citation or the text.

I had to remove the image because:

1. It was a generic old car -- not even the right era -- with a watermark on the image. Certainly you can do better.
2. When I properly inserted the image as an inline scalar link, I got a "type unsupported" error.

Who does this belong to? You need to make it clear from context the source of any given quotation. So you either need to work that into the text, or you need a full CMS citation that would include the author and year.

1. This isn't very good evidence; not worth quoting.
2. It needs a page reference.

Citation Needed. See https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html for a quick reference and see https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/chicago_manual_17th_edition/cmos_author_date_sample_paper.html for a sample paper.

1. Something happened to the images when I reformatted the fonts. Fix to be how you want them, which I presume would be inline. (I would delete them from the HTML and add them again.)

2. This isn't gentrification; this is suburbanization. Gentrification is when you upgrade urban areas; suburbanization is when you build new neighborhoods outside of the city.

The year reference should go after the title, and then the page number alone should go after the quotation. Change throughout.

Title Format. Use italics for titles of long & complete works, and quotation marks for titles of short works that are part of something else, e.g. a chapter in a collection or an article in a journal. See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/underline-or-italicize-book-titles/ and https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.

Just refer to the book by its title; the chapter isn't important

Can we get a picture that isn't watermarked? And fits in the space?

Should be a parenthetical year reference right here. Any time you introduce a text, there should be a parenthetical year reference immediately following it.

I've seen various versions of this formula through these pages, where the name of the author is attached to the title in a possessive, and then they are referred to as "the author" immediately afterwards. Why? Wouldn't it be easier to say, "In Dawn of the Dead (1978_, George Romero makes a point..."? This formulation also treats the author like a real, speaking person that you are having a dialogue with; "the author" seems impersonal and distanced. Change throughout.

Oxford Comma: commas go between every item in a list.

Needs Attestation. You need a source that can support this claim. You don't necessarily need to quote it, but you at least need a parenthetical reference to lend your assertion authority by demonstrating that experts agree with you.

Reverse the order of this sentence to start with the mall, since it is the subject of the paragraph.

Claims like this need attestation from a source. Should include a parenthetical reference.

Again, reframe to be about the zombie criticism: start with DOTD and then go into its connection to the mall as a constructed environment. And get your sources in here too. You should ALWAYS be talking about the scholarship, not the topic.

Title Format. Use italics for titles of long & complete works, and quotation marks for titles of short works that are part of something else, e.g. a chapter in a collection or an article in a journal. See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/underline-or-italicize-book-titles/ and https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.

Also, should include a parenthetical year reference.

You're not analyzing consumerism as such -- you are analyzing it in the context of DOTD. Reframe this to be about the criticism of the movie, e.g. "one major theme in zombie criticism is the idea of the zombie as allegorical consumer, ceaselessly consuming like the ideal subject of late capitalism. Nowhere is this allegory made more clear than in George Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Critics of the film have broken down its relation to consumerism into several distinct topics..."

Remember that this is about the CRITICISM of the film, not just the topic.

Is it possible to remove this since it is redundant with the title?