This submission consists of ONE document with 4 sections – please use the template and don’t recreate it. Follow the prompts and remember to identify your revisions in
bullet form and show track changes in your revised submissions of Critical Summaries 1, 2 and 3. The revised summaries (demonstrating how you took on board and activated the feedback you received during the term) should be followed by a 700-word reflective statement on your learning journey. At the end of the document produce a single
Need answer to this question?
Order an original paper Now!
We’re giving you a 15% discount on your first Order.
Discount Code: SKILNEW15
Use the above discount code during checkout
Reference List.
Marking Criteria
Example
Critical Summary 1 Feedback
Generally speaking, the summary demonstrates a lack of considered planning at the outline stage. It is clear you have read the article, but it is not clear that you have understood the core arguments/purpose of Healey’s article. Try to work on prioritising the core argument out from supporting detail and examples that the author may utilise, as in your summary they seem to be given equal weighting and joined together in unclear paragraphs.
So, simplify your structure to have one main point per paragraph. Ensure you outline the main argument of the author and also indicate in the Introduction what your own intentions are (argument statement). In the main body, expland briefly on the core assertions around travelling planning ideas and make sure you mention key concepts – such as contingent universal, community of inquirers, etc. Expand briefly on one or two examples (can be drawn from the article or your own application of the logic presented in the article). Conclude with a summary of the main point you have made and
remember to include a follow on discussion question (which is worth 5 mark on its own).
Critical Summary 2 Feedback
In general, there is a demonstration that you understand the value of the examples of BIDs and NU but you do not explicitly state this in direct relation to the core article.
There is very little direct reference to McCann and Ward and their concepts. It is overly vague due to this.
Please ensure you read the feedback for each submission. You have not included a discussion question.
One other note that I should have added to your feedback document – you cite Massey but there is no listing for this source in your References.
Critical Summary 3 Feedback
The summary covers the general topic area of Brill and Raco’s chapter, but it does so in a way that is too imprecise and superficial. There are too many general claims and sweeping statements, but are unsubstantiated either through direct reference to the
book and its own examples, or drawing upon other sources to validate the claims made.
It is less than obvious what your general understanding of the proposed ‘London model’ is. This needed to be unpacked and contended with more directly.
See embedded comments. Your own articulation of an argument or statement on the implications of the existence of a London Model need to be presented with more clarity. So, while it is clear you want to ‘explore’ what the authors’ ideas implicate for inequality – the argumentation around this concern is left rather implicit for the reader to assemble as they read the summary.
The question, though valid, is too general.