The
article by Miranda Leirsinger on NBC News, “New York Doctor with Ebola ‘Looks
Better’: Official Says,” is about Dr. Craig Spencer’s case of Ebola. Dr Spencer
was recently treating Ebola patients in Africa, which is when he caught the virus.
The article contained details of the advice given to the city by it’s mayor,
Bill de Blasio. Bill states that the physicians are “concerned for others,” and
“there is no reason for New Yorkers to change their habits in any way.”
Governors debated on Sunday whether or not to quarantine health workers
traveling from countries infected with the Ebola virus. In this article the
views of multiple professionals one the case are provided. For example, NJ
Governor, Chris Christie told Fox News, “if anything else, the governments job
is to protect the safety and health of our citizens,” however, is this what is
being done? In this article, the actions taken by the government are being
questioned. Our nations health is currently at risk, therefore to second-guess
our current systems is reasonable. However, this article could have included
background knowledge on Dr. Spencer’s case or any other evidence of mistakes
mad by our government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In this article review by Maggie Miller she discussed Dr. Craig Spencer’s case of Ebola in New York. One thing that Maggie did well was use a quote from the Governor of New Jersey. This was very informational and it came from a very important person. Another thing that she did well was that she gave a good short summary on the article. A third thing that Maggie did well was that there were no mistakes in the quotes, she placed all the commas in the right spot and was right on the capitalization. She could have been more critical and included more that the author could have included. She also could have included more information on what the disease of Ebola was. I learned from this review that the doctor that got infected in New York was a doctor helping patients of Ebola in Africa.
ReplyDeleteIn this review, Maggie Miller did a good job by including professional opinions. Maggie took quotes from the mayor and other sources which provided a professional feel to the review. Another well done aspect is that Maggie provided background information on her topic. Maggie gave the reader an understanding about ebola and then gave details about the physician who caught the virus. A third example of good part of the review is the conclusion. Maggie ended her review with confidence in her opinion and she had a question towards the end directed at the reader. This made me think about her topic in great depth. This review contained multiple gramatic errors. This made the review seem less official and sometimes made it confusing. Also, Maggie could have had more facts and context on her response to the topic. Her review was too short so it didn't get her whole point across. Throughout this article I learned that Ebola has spread to New York and our government is conflicted on the decision they are going to make.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Maggie did a good job explaining and summarizing the article. She provided good detail, direct quotes, and she did not over explain or copy too much information from the article. Also, she formatted her page correctly, with the correct heading and the proper citation at the top of the page. Lastly, I think she made very few grammatical mistakes, which made it a lot easier to read in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not think that Maggie provided enough information about the author’s critique or anything about the connection to ourselves or our society. Her critique was very short and I did not get enough information from it in my opinion. She said a total of one sentence for her critique of the writing, and she had no information about the connection.
One thing I did take away from this article is that I should not be scared because as Bill de Blasio said, there is nothing I can do to change my habits or ways!
I thought that Maggie did a great job on her summary. She included quotes and specific details that made me want to keep reading. In addition, her report was concise and to the point. She included only the key information and no extra information that was not needed. This made the read more enjoyable and easier to understand. Finally, I thought that Maggie included background information on Ebola and what the doctor was doing when he got the disease. By including this information, I could understand the entire story clearly. Although Maggie’s summary was great, she lacked detail in her critique and connection to society. I thought that she could have had expanded on her critique and what the author did well. Her connection to society was not very clear. It was hard to see where this piece of her review was. In addition, she could have formatted her review a little better. Putting the review into three paragraphs could have broken up the read. Overall, she did a good job on her review and just had a few corrections to make. I found it very interesting and did not know that the government was conflicted in their decision making process.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, I liked how Maggie incorporated quotes in her article, this is because they really help the reader better understand what is going on in the article. The quote really shows what other people think on a controversial topic, like ebola. I also liked how she included a question in the article, engaging the reader even further. Finally, I liked how Maggie incorporated it into the real world, showing the dangerous effects of ebola.
ReplyDeleteAlthough her article was great, I feel there were a few more things she could’ve done to make it even better. First off, she could’ve divided it into a few paragraphs, because she had many great ideas, but I feel like it was crammed all into one. The other thing would say is that parts of the article were a little vague, like when she was talking about the governors debating. This left me wondering, “what governors?”
Finally, what I found very interesting about her article was that I never knew Dr. Craig Spencer caught the ebola virus while helping ebola patients, I now have a whole new look on him.
I thought Maggie did a very good job reviewing this article. First, I liked how she used quotes because this lets us get professional opinions and we know exactly what they think about the issue. I also liked how she asked the readers questions because it engages you and makes the review more interesting. Lastly, i like how she had view points from herself and many other people involved in the issue. There were a couple things Maggie could have improved on. First she kept saying that there was information about such and such in the article, but she didn't elaborate on that information and give details. Also, I didn't read any connection she made to us and why this is important to us. One thing that stood out to me is that her review was not objective and she had opinions from people for the issue and against the issue.
ReplyDeleteIn this review by Maggie Miller, she used a lot of information from article so I could understand clearly about the article. Second thing that she did well is summarizing article concise. The last things is she quoted important people from the article. The things that she could done better are the questions that she brings up are not specific enough so it makes me little bit confusing and there were too much summary and not enough opinion. I learned that there were a lot of things that we didn't know about ebola.
ReplyDeleteToday I read Maggie Miller’s article about the doctor in New York that got Ebola. I really liked her article review as it was very interesting, however it did have some flaws. One thing I liked about her article review is how she incorporated quotes from the article. I think that quotes are a great way to get a feel of the article so I really liked that she used them. Another thing I really liked about her article is how she didn’t start by saying “The article I read…” This is because most of the other articles I read start that way and it’s nice that she changed it up a bit.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I thought her article review was good there are definitely a lot of things she could have improved on. One thing that I thought was lacking in this article is the review part of her article, this is because she only included one sentence of what she thought about the article and I think that she could have said a bit more. Another thing that I think she should have done is that she should have divided her article into multiple paragraphs.
Based on the information that Maggie presented what most interested me was seeing how the state government is not sure what to do about this new disease. I found that interesting and also quite worrisome as the government is supposed to know what to do to contain this disease and the fact that they are unsure on what to do kind of worries me a bit.