Model Peer Comment

Oxana Koshova said...

Peer comment

The extended definition of the “activated carbon” by Kateryna Glevatska gives us full understanding of the notion. The definition itself is clear, brief, and precise, while the paper format of the paragraph is fully observed. These are the best features of the work.

At the same time, the organization and content of the paragraph are also worth mentioning. The paragraph begins with the topic sentence, which identifies the class of the notion, and contains the controlling idea, which specifies the main characteristic of the activated carbon – sorption capacity. Supporting sentences give additional information about the term using sufficient amount of details. All of them are essential for describing the structure or characteristics of the material and supplement the topic sentence. The concluding sentence summarizes the paragraph highlighting the functional use of activated carbon, which results from its structure. It begins with an appropriate end-of-paragraph signal – therefore.

Generally, the sentences in the paragraph flow smoothly and it is easy to read. But there is only one transitional phrase, due to, in the last supporting sentence. It would be better to use more of them.

Though the paragraph is well-structured, it leaves much to be desired from the grammar point of view. Actually, there are both grammar and punctuation mistakes in the text. First of all, the predicate is omitted in the concluding sentence. Secondly, the third person singular in the Present Simple is used improperly in the sentence 4. And also commas are used incorrectly in defining relative clauses (the sentence definition of the activated carbon and sentences 1, 4 of the extended definition).

But as a whole, the definition paragraph by Kateryna Glevatska gives necessary information for understanding the meaning of the notion. It is well-structured and clearly-written. All together these make it easy to read, helpful, and valuable.