Please Do Now:
- Read the following superbowl story: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/14400754/
- What do you like about how this article is written? What don’t you like?
Today, students will:
- Peer edit sports planners.
- Check the following resource (http://www.miamiherald.com/high_school_dade/)to update planners.
- Begin reporting.
- Begin first drafts.
Tonight’s homework is:
- First drafts due Wednesday.
28 responses so far ↓
allisonnovack // January 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
I like how the writer uses words such as “the chessmatch within the chessmatch.” He uses words to create imagery, and he has a very unique style of writing which makes reading the article more interesting. However, he did not include many facts and the article was just based on his style. He used a few statistics and scores, but there were no quotes used at all…no sources.
patrickquinlan // January 26, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
I liked how the story was not necessarily an opinion story, or a news story, but more of a commentary. It was focusing on the two quarterbacks, not on how they match up based upon stats or figures, but simply on how they had the experience. I also liked the reference to the fischer-spassky chess game. However, I did not like how short the article was. I felt that the writer could have elaborated or gone a bit more in-depth or highlighted other features of the QB’s.
kevins2011 // January 26, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
I liked that the article is extremely objective. It compares both quarterbacks equally and gives no hints as to who the author thinks is better. What I did not like about the article was that it compared the two quarterbacks to very old football players. A key to writing an article in journalism is familiarity. Very few people probably know who those old football players are.
lenac2011 // January 26, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
This article is in the style of features writing and has many witty words and phrases. I liked that the article was written to the point and that it got the issue and facts straightened out right away. Even if you don’t know the rules of the game, they are immediately explained it a way that makes it very clear. I also liked that because it is a topic that there is not much to cover, the article does not ramble on about random things but it gets right to the point and tells the reader what is going on and makes them understand what is happening.
jessicaw2010 // January 26, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
I thought this article was a very interesting article to read. The author uses playful diction to interest his readers. This article compares both teams, moreover the quaterbacks from each team. There were no sources used but there were statistics. He also uses a rhetorical question to have the readers actually think of what’s actually going to happen. I think that this article was also unbiased.
xkatastrophe // January 26, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
I didnt particularly like the article much, or at all for that matter. I thought it wasnt done in a specific style of writing and that it bounced back in forth between news and features or something of the sort. He tried to be funny at the end with the “Lalala is 26. Can the geezer outfox the punk?” and I found it to be a sad attempt. Very short article and the statistics were oddly put or not needed, as were the facts.
carmenk2012 // January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
This article appeals to me. I like the relaxed and conversationalized tone to it. The writer writes like they are speaking to you, but with just enough wordplay. I don’t like how this article doesn’t include quotes. I would like to have seen what other people think on this particular subject.
LyssaG2011 // January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
I liked that the article was written in a concise manner, and I was also able to understand the majority of it because most of the references were explained. For example, even though I’ve never heard of Fischer and Spassky, I still understood the point that was being made. I disliked that the write called the 37-year-old a geezer because it wasn’t funny.
This article seems closest to column writing because it is based on the writer’s rantings regarding the upcoming Super Bowl. There wasn’t much new to learn, but it was interesting overall to hear his take.
jessekirk11 // January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
I like that it was written in a concise way. Also, there were some short paragraphs as in an opinion piece, which kept the audience’s attention. There were also some witty lines like “Can the geezer outfox the punk?”.
The last line was a bit dull and kind of like an FCAT ending, which could have been more interesting. Definitely no a wineglass.
It is most closely related to a feature because he did not side with one of the QBs and he did not report a past event.
Kelsey Sumalla // January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
I like how the writer brings humor into the article like when he writes “the chess match within the chess match”. I don’t understand parts of it because I am not familiar with the sports terminology, but I can tell that he doesn’t write very much about facts besides some scores from previous games. It seems closest to an opinion piece because the author is giving his opinion on how the game is more interesting than most because it has an “intriguing subplot” within the plot. For example, Michael Ventre writes, “So having two quarterbacks who have been through the media scrutiny and have endured the layoff before the game and the hoopla and the buildup — not to mention the actual intensity of the game itself — is priceless.”
biancac2010 // January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
One creative way the writer explains this article is by introducing it with a plot, like a story. Also, the way he compares this upcoming situation to a previously famous one, Fischer vs Spassky, allows the reader to realize how important it is. What i dont like about the article is that it only relates to other famous sporting events instead of a more well known subject.
nadineg2012 // January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
I liked that the article was very thorough but also explained things in terms that someone who didn’t know much about sports (like me!) could understand. However, I thought it was very informal. I liked that it used some show-not-tell and humor, like when the author says things like, “Can the geezer outfox the punk?”
I think it most resembled column-writing because the author presented his commentary on a situation, but did not conclude with a suggestion for some sort of action. It also contained show-not-tell and humor.
alicel2011 // January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
The article was ok . I liked that the article was short and to the point. The wrtiter gave all the information without boring the reader. I didn’t like that the writer did not give any backgound ingormation about what was going on. I mean i understood it had something to do with the Super bowl. But that was it. In order to complettely undersatnd the article you would have had to known the players background. I think this piece was more closely realted to a features. It had a little pun to it. It also included some facts.
hkramer14 // January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
I think the author of this article has a distinct vocabulary — very sophisticated and concise vocabulary, although it was a little confusing for me to read. He says something like a chessmatch for two people and then goes into how they both one the superbowl for their team. I thought they were chess players ?!?! But, maybe it is only me that got confused.
The author also did not use that many facts ….no sources, no quotes
Overall, his writing style is good.
brittanywaserstein // January 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
I like the way the article is written because he uses good diction which interests the reader, as well the way he compares the quarterbacks to a chessmatch. The author compares both teams as well as the quarterbacks and gives statistics regarding the score of the game. At the end the author talks about how important a quarterback is to inform the reader about the job of a quarterback.
hrynor // January 26, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
The author set up his article in a very interesting way. The first sentence for example, “A good plot is always better when it contains an intriguing subplot,” it is not the same type of lede that we were taught, but rather put the sentence into very catchy terms so that people would want to continue reading the article. I also found “the chess match within the chess match” to be very interesting way to rephrase what he said in the first sentence. The author did not give very much background information though, especially if you have no idea who the quarterbacks are or the teams.
7y13r // January 26, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
I liked the chess references made in the article, although to those who aren’t fans of chess they may have seemed obscure. It shared a lot of similarities with columns.
RayL2012 // January 26, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
I liked this article was interesting and fun to read. it gave alittle bit of background of the quarterbacks. Also the author doesnt give his opinion.
patrickquinlan // January 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
patrickquinlan // January 26, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
:d
patrickquinlan // January 26, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
:b
patrickquinlan // January 26, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
patrickquinlan // January 26, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
Smileys
madisonjsanders // January 26, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
In this article, I like how the author compared the two Super Bowl winning quarter backs to a geezer and a punk. It helps the reader understand that the 1999 winner is much older than the 2005 winner and maybe more experienced than the new comer.
I did not like how the second paragraph was entirely redundant regarding the two quarter backs winning the super bowl.
patrickquinlan // January 26, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
molliee // January 26, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
The article was fine. It could have been reported better. I found it a little boring, was n not a very good sports article in my opnion. A good thing about this article was that it didnt ramble on it was pretty straight forward. I liked the reference to the fischer-spassky chess game. It was laking some information but it was ok.
Lauren Peterson // January 26, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
This article is well written and I enjoyed the massive amounts of detailed figurative language included within it. The only issue that I had with it was the fact that I didnt know who Bobby Fischer or Boris Spassky were. There were also other people which I had never heard of. The lede was different from how we were taught. You can tell he likes football yet he could have beeb more factual.
yamileyl2009 // January 26, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
I like the way the author conveys the information. It resembles an opinion writing instead of pure, strightforward presentation of facts and data. It’s main purpose is to entertain the reader with humorous diction and get the author’s point across.