“What It’s Like To
Spend A Month Under The Sea”
by Megan Gannon
In this
article, by Megan Gannon, the amazing 31-day underwater mission taken by the 47
year old Fabien Cousteau and his team came to an end. The scientist traveled
about 63 feet below the surface in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
The team lived in the habitat, Aquarius, approximately the size of a bus or a
New York City apartment. Cousteau said that he sometimes spent 10 to 12 hours a
day outside the Aquarius, exploring the reef. The team was able to uncover
three years of data in just one month on the effects of climate change and how
the loss of marine predators can affect the coral reefs. Not only was the
adventure educational, it was also an amazing experience. Cousteau says, “Every day was a new experience. It's very
addicting to be integrated in an alien environment and surrounded by the
fireworks display of life.”
The new discovers that were
uncovered could help explain the climate changes and provide more information
on marine life. In addition, this mission could set a precedent for human
civilization underwater. This could help bring back data and help get a better
understanding on what the aquatic world means to humans. Although, the human
body can suffer more issues undersea. The body is more prone to diseases and
the air pressure can cause changes in voice patterns. Also, the sense of smell
and taste can begin to fade away.
I thought that the author did a good
job presenting background information and made me want to read on. The article
had many quotes that gave me first hand opinions of what the experience was
really like. Although, the author barely provided the reader with any details.
There was no data that was given to show what the science team did when they
were in the Aquarius. Many times I had to assume some things, not knowing if
they are correct. Overall, the article did not give me much information on the
event and the author could have done more research on the topic before
publishing it.
There were numerous aspects of the review that were well presented. Among these are that it was well written and demonstrated comprehension of the article. Also, Fina clearly demonstrates what is important about this article and the research that was collected. However, it would have been even better if Fina had included more details about what "Aquarius" is. Additionally, she could have explained what research was being done and what it had found instead of just saying "research." I do see that she did say no research was provided, but possible extra research could also have been done. I think Fina did a great review of her article even though the original author did not provide many details.
ReplyDeleteThe article response I am critiquing is Fina Maldonado’s article on Fabien Cousteau’s adventure in an underwater habitat for a month. I liked how she took specific details from the article and put them in her explanation. I also thought the flow of her response was well done. She tells us the specifics of why the team was down there in the first place and helps us to understand the purpose. What she could of done better was explained the results they gathered in their studies and how they would affect our world. Another thing she could of done better is described the habitat Aquarius more, How were things brought there? Was it like normal life? Could more of these be built for commercial use? Overall, i was really impressed with her ability to describe the experiment and what the team was doing it for, it was a well thought out response.
ReplyDeleteI am reviewing Fina Maldonado's article on Fabien Cousteau's adventure to the aquatic world for 31 days. I like how Fina used specific text details and used them in her argument. Also, her describing words and adjectives were strong and powerful. To me, this shows that she really and truly cares about her topic, and that she did this article because she was actually interested in it. Finally, I liked how Fina formatted her response. It was easy and fun to read, not too long, not too short, and her vocabulary was simple but confident. She did it in the format presented to us, which made it simple but complex at the same time, and really made you think. However, no great response is great without flaws. Her's are cosmetic, and can really be changed at the surface. I think, personally, Fina could have talked more about how and why humans ever would have the need to live underwater. She told us that the expedition took a step towards that, but she never talked about what would cause sub-marine human life. Also, she could have talked about the significance of the name Cousteau and the effect that Jacques Cousteau had on the marine world. She never once mentioned him, and the name is so significant to her article. However, the entire article really surprised me. I am a lover of the aquatic world, however, I never knew that this expedition was taking place. I applaud and comment Fina for teaching me something new, and I look forward to reading her next current event article.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that was done well in this article was that it was very concise. I liked this because whenever I review an article, I feel like I need to include every detail and have a hard time separating the important details from the less important ones. Another thing that was done well was that she took examples from the quote and supported her data with these, as well as a quote from Fabien Cousteau. Finally, I liked that her article transitioned well from one idea to another, making it flow well. This made the article easier to understand and read, in my opinion. She was also very critical of the article, in a good way. This might have been that the article was poorly written, but sometimes I find it hard to critique an article thoroughly, or as much as the writer did. One thing that i did not like about this review was that the writer said that the crew lived in a "habitat" called Aquarius without explaining what a "habitat" was. For example, it could be an underwater vehicle, or a room underwater, or an entire complex. Another thing that I didn't like about this response was that, although it was concise, it might be too concise. The writer could have done some background research on what she was reading about if she didn't understand some things or had to assume some information about the article, instead of just not including it. Lastly, one thing I was impressed by in reading this article are the effects that the air pressure and life underwater in general has on the human body. I would have liked for there to be more information or a deeper explanation of the diseases people are more prone to and why or the voice pattern changes, though.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Was this article written by Fina Maldonado, or for Fina Maldonado? Because it says that the article was posted by Hadley Barr at the bottom.
The article I read, “What It's Like To Spend A Month Under the Sea,” by Fina Maldonado, explained the underwater mission made by Fabien Cousteau. One aspect of the review I enjoyed was that Fina was honest and admitted that the author, Megan Gannon, should have researched the topic more before publishing the article. Another aspect of Fina’s review that I enjoyed was that she explained the point of going on the exploration, which was to gather lots of different information on what happens when people live under water for so long and to explore the marine life. One other thing I liked about the review was that Fina gave lots of detail considering that the article she was given didn’t include many facts. One aspect of the review I would change to make it better would be to explain some kinds of the data they gathered during the trip. Another thing I would change to improve the article would be to give background information and explain why this was a trip that people wanted to take and were willing to contribute in. One fact that surprised me from the article and review was that the human body is prone to more diseases and that changes in voice patterns can occur when underwater for a long period of time.
ReplyDeleteThere were lots of good things about this review.The first things I liked about where she put lots of specific numbers from article and it is concise so I can understand clearly. Also her responds to the article was well written. The things I didn't like about it were her explanation. I think she could explain more about Aquarius and about the research they have done. However I think her review was very good. It was easy to read even though there weren't many details she put the small details together well so that we can understand.
ReplyDelete