Answer the questions below when reviewing a peer’s paper:

• Does the introduction clearly announce the topic and engage the reader’s interest? If not, why not? If yes, what is engaging and interesting?
• Is there a clear sense of purpose throughout the writing? Why or why not?
• Is the solution effectively presented? Why or why not?
• Are sources integrated into the proposal? Do they follow APA format? Are they effective? Why or why not?
• Is the graphic effective in supporting the proposal idea? Why or why not?
• How could the author improve the paper? Please offer at least two concrete suggestions.
• Do you consider this paper to be responsive to the assignment? If not, what recommendations do you have for making it meet the requirements?
• Provide additional suggestions or comments.

Step 3: Post your feedback as a response to your team members’ original posting.

HERES ALYSSA’S REVIEW OF MY ROUGH DRAFT. PLEASE CREATE A RESPONSE FOR THIS.

Hi Mit,

The introduction does cover the topic that effective communication needs improvement at Starbucks. It does grab my attention because Starbucks is a very popular business for coffee drinkers, and any information on how the business can be improved will grab a reader’s attention. There is a sense of purpose behind the changes, but they did come across as a little unorganized. You use “therefore” many times at the end of your paragraphs, and that’s a word we have learned to try to stay away from. Also, a couple of your paragraphs are only two sentences long. Three sentences are needed to be considered a paragraph. It was mentioned in last week‘s seminar to use single and double spacing between paragraphs, so once those changes are made, I think the organization can be improved.

There are several solutions you provided. I suggest changing the solutions “can” change, rather than “will” change because you don’t know for sure that they will improve anything. Also, bullet points can make the solutions more organized and more accessible for the audience to read.

Sources are implemented in your proposal, but I feel that only half of them support your paper. Also, in the subheading “Estimated Solution Implementation Budget,” you provide the cost of multiple categories, but where are you getting these numbers from? If this is from a source, it should be included in the paragraph. Also, when citing 3 or more authors you use “et al.”

(Nafe Assafi, Hoque & Hossain, 2022). (Nafe Assafi, et al., 2022)

A graphic is not present in your proposal and is also needed to support your research. It is a requirement on the rubric for the week 5 final paper. I know this is a rough draft, but my recommendation for improvement is to look at the research proposal example that Dr. Lao provided as a template. I believe we needed to use the subheadings on the template- executive summary, introduction, background, recommendations, benefits, and conclusion. A memo is also needed in the beginning, as well as an executive summary- this is also on the rubric for the final paper due in week 5.

Your paper is responsive; there just needs to be more organizational changes to make it easier to read. I enjoyed reading your paper, and I thank you for sharing it.

Best,

Alyssa