Book Reports of Peers and Ratings-International Arms Trade

I would rank the reports in this order:

[Student 1] (1)

This paper does a great job of breaking down the book into different categories in order to better understand the work of Peter Moskos. STUDENT 1 is able to point out the critical details from the book and shows her competence with the lessons learned from Moskos. The way she breaks down her paper makes it easy to read and easy to navigate when looking for critical factors. Her conclusion wraps up the paper nicely and I tend to agree with most of the points that STUDENT 1 a makes in her work.

[STUDENT 2] (6)

STUDENT does a good job summarizing the novel and incorporating Moskos’ words into his review of the book. The grammatical proficiency of the paper could be improved; however, the ideas presented are not compromised at all by some of the wordiness of the paper. STUDENT 2 shows a clear understanding of the novel and the lessons that Moskos intended to unveil from his time as a police officer in East Baltimore.

[STUDENT 3] (3)

STUDENT 3 provides an in-depth summary of the book in which he provides his understanding of Moskos’ details within the novel. He also talks about Moskos’ interesting background that led him to doing research by becoming a police officer in Eastern Baltimore. STUDENT 3 also points out Moskos’ possible bias in working with police officers for over a year and how Moskos tries to overcome this bias in his reporting. The conclusion could’ve been more encompassing but overall a good report.

STUDENT 4 (5)

STUDENT 4 took a different approach to this book than most of the other individuals in this group, which is obviously completely fine. Her review focused around the lost lessons with Cop in the Hood, due to Moskos’ over usage of words and situations to explain his points. She also takes about the race issues present within the book that may go overlooked to other readers of the same novel. Her conclusion wrapped up her report well by saying that she wished the book had been completed differently due to her interest in the subject and anticipation after the first few chapters.

STUDENT 5 (2)

STUDENT 5 also took an interesting approach to her review by focusing the structure around the flaws that are presented throughout the novel. Moskos points out many flaws within the police system, starting with the police academy all the way through an officer’s career. She does a good job navigating through these flaws and making her review one that is worthy of our time. I like the points she makes, and her paper is very easy to follow.

STUDENT 6 (4)

STUDENT 6’s paper starts with some wordy sentences that could be revised; however, the points he is trying to make are easy to follow. He provides a good synopsis of the novel and keeps his paper interesting to the reader. His thoughts seem to get jumbled here and there with some wordy sentences; however, overall, I believe it is a good book review.