User talk:Makuta101

Personal SWOT Analysis The peer evaluation form had a detailed analysis of my strengths and weaknesses identified in my work. The response indicated that I had followed all the requirements needed for writing a research paper. The paper was duly organized with labels and subheadings making it easy to understand the flow of ideas from the beginning to the end. My peers evaluated the work giving a keen eye to details especially on the reference style that I had used. They stated that I had followed the right formatting style of APA where citation requires that the surname of the author comes after the year of publication. I also provided a separate page that contained a list of references as required by APA rules of referencing. However, the peer evaluation results also highlighted some weak areas which needed my attention. Among the key things identified were incomplete references; it means that there were in-text citations without the identification of a complete resource on the reference list. Most of these citations were from the class textbook. I was supposed to reference my work only from those sources that I had used for research. Furthermore, there was a lack of organization on the list of references. It should be arranged in alphabetical order instead of using bullets. According to the rules of this formatting style, was supposed to create a hanging indent in the reference page. However, the title of this page (References) should be centered. The response indicates that my paper had adequate information regarding technology and use of drones in the modern day world. Nevertheless, the peers instructed me to revisit my work and write a clear thesis statement. While the scope of my paper was broad (a general focus on drones), the claim should be narrow so that it could guide me on the type of resources to use in my research. I was supposed to be specific in my statement to indicate how drones have influenced humanity. This idea could enable the reader to have a clear overview of the main idea in the discussion. I have taken sufficient time to revise my work and make necessary corrections before submission. I started by reviewing my thesis statement so that readers can have an overview of what am talking about in the entire research paper. I made sure that it exactly touches on the key points of my argument as supported by other researchers recognized in the references. Therefore my statement is clear enough and any person reading my work can easily understand my view on the impact of drone technology on our daily lives. Various parts of this study are well organized and connected to make one well-researched paper. There is a clear flow of ideas in my work. Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence followed by other supporting information. Every point is well argued out backed up with data from previous studies carried out the same field. I have also used simple English that is easy to understand with proper use of information technology-related terminologies. I also took more time to proofread my work thoroughly. It enabled me to correct all grammatical errors and unnecessary mistakes that could make readers miss the most important points. I carried further research on my references and how to organize them. The missing references can now be easily identified on the list after including the missing ones and rearranging them in alphabetical order.