Post #13: 2nd Critique

Here is my critique of Brendan's final paper:

Brendan did a good job of combining narrative with evidence to support his thesis that Mattel was an innovator in the children’s toy business. I found his paper both informative and interesting. Though I was aware of the popularity of Barbie dolls with girls and Hot Wheels with boys, I never knew the story behind them or that they were both Mattel products. That the Barbie doll originated from a German bachelor party gag gift, or that its proportions equate to a 38”-18”-33” “real life” figure are just a couple of the anecdotal facts making this paper an entertaining read.

There was also a good deal of evidence in the paper to show that Mattel was an innovative company. In addition to the Barbie doll and Hot Wheels toys, the paper mentioned newer toys such as video games. It also addressed the business aspects of selling these toys by discussing Mattel’s innovative marketing solutions which included sponsorships and licensing. Further, the paper dealt with a few of the social implications of these toys, such as perceptions of beauty, portrayals of ethnicity, and inculcation of consumerism. The topic sentences of most of the paragraphs did a pretty good job of serving as bridges from one idea to the next, so the paper was basically a smooth read.

While the main strength of the paper was its argument and supporting evidence, one of its weaknesses was the incompleteness of its beginning. The first thing I noticed, before I even started reading the paper, was the absence of a title page. Obviously, I knew who wrote the paper since Brendan e-mailed it to me himself, but if someone else picked it up, they would have no way of knowing who wrote it. Additionally, a title page would have been an opportunity to grab the attention of potential readers and give some indication of the paper’s subject matter. The introductory paragraph would have helped accomplish those things if the paper had dealt only with Barbie dolls. Since the paper was broader than that though, a brief mention in the introduction of some of the other topics (e.g. Hot Wheels, sponsorship, licensing, video games, etc.) would have been appropriate.

I found a number of mechanical errors that would have been relatively simple to spot and fix through careful editing. There were some misspellings such as “was” instead of “ways” in the opening paragraph or “Psychaitry” instead of “Psychiatry” in the bibliography. In some instances, it would have been advisable to break paragraphs down into smaller ones. Page two was one such instance. The footnotes were somewhat problematic. Footnote number four was missing and footnotes eight and eighteen had extraneous numbers next to them. Footnote 10 only needed the truncated form “Ibid.” Additionally, period placement in parenthetical references or in cited passages was inconsistent and thus, sometimes incorrect. There were also a number of passive constructions. Just to give an example, the middle of page six reads, “Mattel would be compensated for allowing their products to be distributed in this manner.” Lastly, the visuals in the appendix certainly added to the enjoyment of the paper, but figures three and four were too blurry to read.

This paper presented a relatively sound argument. It was an informative as well as interesting read that made some effort at connecting the topic to larger social concerns. An academic audience would likely offer criticism that the paper needs more sources to substantiate its thesis. The bibliography was about half a page, so given the constraints of the course, perhaps something closer to a full page would have been desirable. There was no one overwhelming error, but there were many small ones. I realize this may be due, in large part, to Brendan’s unfortunate encounter with Murphy’s Law. Taken individually, most of the errors were relatively minor and easy to correct, but collectively, they were a significant detraction from the paper. For that reason, I’d have to say this paper is still somewhere in the “B” range.