Some Points I Wanted to Make...

Eddie Izzard (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 ... as I graded your sitcom reviews.

1) I did want you to tell me the names of the actors who played the various parts and possibly to tell me other shows they appeared in. The point of that in this case would be to make clear the key participants in this project were all vets of film and TV, suggesting (among other things) that money was probably invested in this project upfront. These people had records of previous success. As flops go, this was a big one.

2) Also, talking about the careers of the actors provides a natural transition either out of or into a discussion of the acting.

3) But how would you know what these actors did earlier in their careers? I did NOT intend to use Turnitin as a bludgeon to discourage you from doing *any* research. A quick Google to discover who is this Eddie Izzard is acceptable - and won't ruin your T score anymore than using Google to find out the hours of the restaurants you reviewed. What I *don't* want you to do is use the internet to read reviews by others and turn your own review into a compilation rather than a fresh take.

4) Take a look at this review from the Chronicle that I linked to on the class blog several years ago. It's not great, but you see how David Wiegand has a catchy little lead that makes clear his focus. This review has a good old-fashioned thesis!! And then he lets us know who in the cast does what and what there backgrounds are. I actually think he puts all this info too high in the review. But notice how about 2/3rds in, he gives rich detail about the excellence of the detail in the background animation. Most reviews are a mixture of supported and unsupported generalizations. If you richly and persuasively support *some* of your generalizations, readers are more likely to take your unsupported ones on faith.

https://www.sfgate.com/default/article/BoJack-Horseman-review-Saddled-with-mediocre-5698929.php