This article “Athlete’s Foot” focuses on the question, is athletic prowess achieved or gained? It explains, through many tests completed and observations obtained, the advantages that competitive sprinters are born with, and what disadvantages other people are born with. It also thoroughly explains the differences of people that are born with better abilities, and people that train for those abilities. For example, Dr. Lee and Dr. Piazza observed that the average lengths of sprinters toes are 8.2 cm, and those of non-printers averaged 7.3 cm. these facts suggest that sprinters get better contact with the ground by having longer toes. This creates a firmer platform to push against, making it quite easy for them to move faster, resulting in a better sprinter. This article shows that some people are born with qualities that give them an advantage as a sprinter. Although, it states that people can work at their skills and become better, but some parts of their body that give them a disadvantage over others cannot be improved, for instance, the length of their toes.
The facts stated in this article help humanity today because it can help people get their facts straight. For some people training and working very hard to become something like an Olympic sprinter, it can help show them that they are at a slight disadvantage. Only because of their bone, tendon, foot, toes, and overall makeup of their body. Also, this changes the way sprinters and sprinting is looked at because now, it just shows how these little things create such advantages. And for people that are very good sprinters, and do not have all these qualities, it shows how hard they work and train to become the amazing sprinter they are today.
This article was very interesting and relatable. I enjoy sprinting and therefore, it made it all the more enjoyable to read about. The length of this article was very appropriate, although it could have had a little more detail and facts. It gave good insight on the topic and question at hand, and included many examples to help the reader gain a better knowledge of the athlete’s foot. Some words were difficult to understand, but overall, this was a very well written and appealing article.
In Hillary’s review, I think she explained her topic very well overall. I liked how she explained the content of the article, such as the example given of the length of an athlete’s toes compared to the length of the toes of an average person. I think it was interesting how, no matter how hard some people may work, they may never be as good at running as others, simply because of the makeup of their bodies. When she presented her article in class, Hillary used a clear voice and made good eye contact with her audience, which showed that she knew about her topic very well and was interested in it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that could have made this article review even better would be if she explained better the scientists’ reasoning behind the fact that some people will never be as good at running as others.
I would like to learn more about the topic overall, because I think the subject is very thought-provoking and interesting. I would like to know if this same reasoning could apply elsewhere, such as in schoolwork or other things.
Hillary,
ReplyDeleteGreat Article! One thing you did that was especially great was that you picked a great article. Another thing you did was that you just in general, had a well-written review. Among other great things you did, a third thing is that you let your review grab the reader’s attention!
To make your review even better, I would suggest really focusing on the details of the article, and a second thing is that I would say is that you could maybe make your report a little bit shorter!
One great thing I learned about your topic, was that you really do need true athletic ability, not just practice!
XOXO,
CAROLINE
Hillary picked a very interesting article and reviewed it in a way that caught my attention. Her writing very was clear and easy to understand. Also, she went into a nice amount of detail when comparing different sprinters and their toe length.
ReplyDeleteShe could have gone into more detail about how this is only for sprinter and not for long distance runners. In Hillary’s writing I noticed a few spelling mistakes that could have been corrected.
Overall, that the length of a sprinters toe can affect how fast they run.
Hillary's article, "Athletes Foot" was very interesting. One thing she did very well was explaining about what she wrote. Also, her writing was very clear and easy to understand. Another thing she did well was detail about the article, she made sure to make the reader interested. One thing hillary could have done better was her spelling I spotted a few mistakes. Also, Hillary could have been more clear in certain sections of the article where I got a little lost. One thing I would like to learn more about it the topic overall. I think it would help everyone to know more about athletes foot and how to avoid it.
ReplyDeleteIn this article "Athletes Foot" Hillary did many things stupendis. First off she made it interesting becuase she gave us a summary of hte article before going into specifics which made it easier to understand and compare to the end result. She gave us interesting details like how the build of someones foot especially their toes could benefit them in sprinting. She also said the main point of this article becuase of hte build of some people toes such as sprinters this allows them to be more athletic than some who train harder.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Hillary could have done better was stand up i believe everyone is more attentive when someone is standing. Also i wish she would have compared more than just state facts about her article.
In all i believe it was an interesting article to discover that some people are naturally better built for athletics and will always have an advantage over others. I believe it was a good pick on Hillary's part.
In this article “Athlete’s Foot” Hillary did many things well to comment on it. First, she chose a very interesting topic that most teenagers are interested in. Also, she went into a lot of detail when comparing different sprinters and their toe lengths. Lastly, her writing was very clear which made it easy to comprehend.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Hillary could have done to improve her review is make the report a little bit shorter. Also, if she had went into more detail about the scientist’s opinion about this.
One thing that I learned from this review is that natural ability is definitely a huge advantage for sports.
I thought this review was very good; it easily caught the reader’s attention with its interesting topic. It was a very smart choice to pick this article because it affects many highschoolers who are athletes. I also liked how clear and easy to understand your writing was, you made the topic very clear. Lastly you explained the theory of “Athelete’s Foot” very well and gave a lot of very fascinating facts about it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I would say you could improve on is going into even more in depth detail about the article especially in explaining why this theory does not work for long distance runners as much as it does for sprinters. Also there were a few spelling mistakes made in her review.
Overall I thought this was a very good review and a very good choice in articles because it’s something that many people are interested in and especially as a runner its very captivating to read.
I thought Hillary did a very good job with the article review. She put in a lot of good data to prove her point and keep it interesting. I think it was a good topic because it is easy to relate to because so many for us students are athletes. I also liked that Hillary didn’t put into many difficult vocabulary words, the review was easy to read. To improve the review Hillary could have fixed a few misspellings, and given more insite about how this article relates to everyone, with more details. Overall I think this was a good review and I thought it was very interesting to learn that some people are genetically more athletic then others.
ReplyDeleteI thought this review was very well written. Hillary did a good job of getting the readers attention very quickly. It is an interesting topic that affects many people's lives in our school. I like how she compared the measurements of toes between sprinters and normal people to show how the length of a toe can affect a sprinters ability. She then explained how it helps them to be faster.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that Hillary could have done to this review even better would be if she explained the scientists' reasoning behind the fact that some people will never be as good at running as others.
Overall I think this is a great review in which Hillary did a great job in explaining the fact sprinters are better when they have longer toes.
I think Hillary made a good choice in starting her review by stating the question that the article was trying to answer, this made it easy to see what the point of her article was as opposed to some other reviewers where their summary does not clearly state what the main point is. I like how she realted this to her real life (she enjoys sprinting and the example she gave was sufficient in illustrating the main ideas.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I wish she had listed more advantages and disadvantages that she alludes to in the second sentence that separate athletes from others, one example does not seem adequate in proving her point. Otherwise, I wish she did not repeat herself quite so often, I felt as if I was rereading the idea every othe sentence.
From this review I was able to learn that skill is not just based on talent or hard work, it can often be a mix of the two, but being proficient in either area does help.