Encyclopedia Entry 2 Proofreading

EncyclopediaEntry 2: Proofreading

First,the general work on the paper is brilliant. The vocabulary, structureof sentences, and flow of ideas are great. However, my concern is onthe introduction. Instead of first defining what &quotfracking&quotis, the writer has just included a brief explanation of its functionin the oil and gas drilling process. In addition, since the word isnot grammatically correct, it could have been appropriate if it wereput in quotes or italics. The introduction could have looked morelike this: Frackingis the practice of drilling and infusing fluid underground in avertical manner at high pressure to break the underground shale rocksand free the trapped innate gas. I am also fine with the factspresented. They are from valid sources on the internet. For instance,the NewYork Timesonline newspaper.


Thequestion that comes to mind after reading this piece is why thewriter has not mentioned some of the activists that are against themethod. It could have been important for the reader to know thebackground of a given activism or lobby group fighting this drillingprocess. This would have enabled us (readers) to ascertain whetherthe doubts about Russia expressed in the paper are true or false. Bychecking the history of a lobby group, it is possible to verify linksbetween them and Russia. It would have improved the credibility ofthe paper, expressing the writer`s fearlessness in tackling issues.Another important question is, has the author concluded the paper bytaking sides or is he/she just stating facts as they are? Elaborate,why would Russia be in support of the environmental activism against&quotfracking?&quot


Howarth,Robert W., Anthony Ingraffea, and Terry Engelder. &quotNatural gas:Should fracking stop?.&quot&nbspNature&nbsp477.7364(2011): 271-275.

Spence,David B. &quotBackyard politics, national policies: understandingthe opportunity costs of national fracking bans.&quot&nbspYaleJ Reg&nbsp30(2013): 30A-475.

Related Posts

© All Right Reserved