Group 1 Paper: Emily, Jason, Anne, Shayla
Overall this is a very strong paper that follows the rubric guidelines and meets the word counts for both the abstract and the main paper. It has a nice descriptive title and an abstract that is both descriptive and concise and would make me want to read the full paper. All of the figures are high quality and add to the paper without distracting the reader away. For all sections, they are in-depth and also concise and have properly cited in-text citations. It would be nice to explain the calculations for the numbers given on the square footage of the Riverside Avenue basin that consists of impervious surfaces. Similarly, for the reoccurrence interval and yearly percent chance numbers should note if the calculations are your own or add a citation. I would note that you could add an explanation on the simple model but you are currently at the upper word count.
Group 2 Paper: Mark, Kat, Grant, Emma
This is a solid paper with some potential for improvement as it follows the rubric guidelines and meets the abstract word count. The abstract is a bit dry, almost seems too concise and could be improved by being more descriptive. I might want to read this paper from the abstract but only if I needed more sources. The main paper is about 25% over the word count and there are a couple sections where eliminating whole paragraphs could improve the paper. The figures are all pretty informative, but it would be nice to blow up the image in the right side of the locational figure 1. The background information is really solid but should try and shave off some words to make it more concise. The paragraph on the infinite slope model feels a bit overkill and by removing could decrease to only about 270 words over instead of 400. The removal of the information contained in this paragraph doesn’t really harm the paper as it feels sort of tangential. The presentation of mitigation strategies in the discussion and potential solutions in the conclusion are both really strong. The main problem is word count with more concise sentence structure the main solution besides removing the infinite slope model paragraph.
Group 3: Ryan, Remy, Harrison, Leah
The paper has solid information presented but has a poor, confusing structure of sections and figures. The paper meets the abstract word count and doesn’t meet the main body word count as it’s more than 400 words over. The title could be more in-depth and descriptive and the abstract needs to get reworded to be more of a summary about the information presented and less about the structure of how they collected said information. I would not want to read this paper from reading the abstract. The section headers have a lack of organization as they are all questions and the figures are clustered at the end of the paper. Both of these leave me confused about how to read the paper and it would really benefit from proper section headers like introduction, discussion, conclusion, etc. Another thing to improve the paper is to put the figures within the sections that they are part of and add more in-text citational references to these figures. Even after fixing these several major issues, lots of work needs to occur to get the paper below the upper word count limit.
Group 5: Brenda, Adam, Freddy, Reshma
This is really solid paper with some room for improvement by adding additional information. A decent title but should place it above the headings with your names. The abstract is solid as it meets the word count and is both concise and in-depth. I would want to read this paper after reading the abstract. The main paper has really nice, descriptive section headings and meets the lower word count. This allows some flexibility to add additional information and figures which could strengthen this paper a bit. It would be nice to add a locational figure- look at the figure 1s of groups 1 and 2. There are quite a few spelling and grammatically errors to cleanup including noting that water table is two words and could use aquifer as a synonym. Overall nice paper with good concise information, but could expand on some of your ideas including potential solutions, anthropogenic contributors to slides, and landslide triggers.
Group 6: Ben, Julia, Derek, Luc
This is another strong paper, but there is way, way, way too much information as its almost 700 words or over 50% over the main paper word count. A nice, descriptive title but like the previous group should put above the headings with group member names. The abstract meets the word count and starts strong but tails off. Try avoid the following parts: this paper will, topics include… as these detract from the abstract. I might want to read this paper from the abstract but only if I needed more sources. The overall paper has a lot of good information, unfortunately there’s just way too much presented. It’s such a solid paper that I don’t know where the best section to remove 700 words would be; it’s such a shame to have this situation. Nice, quality figures, but should specify where Riverside Ave is located in figures 1 and 5. Good paper but will need a decent bit of thought to slim down to the upper word count.