Entry THREE - Peer Review (Vandhanaa's WA2)

On the whole, the essay is quite concise, and the ideas are brought forward in a very crisp and detailed manner. It is also somewhat coherent, although it takes effort for the reader to piece each point together and get the 'big picture' of the entire essay. Each paragraph explains its corresponding point in a 'cause-and-effect' way, which means the point gets through to the reader, but leaves behind a dull impression. Hence, its grip on the reader's attention is not strong.
Furthermore, the paragraphs are long, as a reader, find that I have to read and re-read many times in order to fully understand the points and their relations to each others.

Besides minor grammer mistakes, I'm not too sure if the use of '(i)' and '(ii)' as point indicators are correctly used, if they are allowed in the writing assignment. So perhaps we would be able to clarify on that.

Also, example of a 'study' in paragraph three is not clearly linked back to the original idea, which I guess is elaborated on in paragraph two. It seems like it is out of place with the essay's overall layout.

Otherwise, I think it is a good improvement over WA1. Its content portrayal has sharpened, so the reader would understand each point in depth. However, because of this, the essay would require some rearrangement to effectively capture the reader's attention and maximize his understanding.