Research paper

Meaning they are "community oriented"? This needs a bit of further clarification. Orange indicates where you should be more attentive to clarity, precision, and ease of reading. The first time you cite a source, you need to fully contextualize it for the reader. This sentence should say something like, "As Varga notes in their 2014 article [title], published in [journal title] . . . " You have to assume that your reader will never have access to your sources, so your job is to provide context for those sources. You need to do that every time you cite something new. Pink indicates where you have to be attentive to your audience. I know we talked through this thesis, but the phrasing that you landed on still makes this sound "observational," rather than an argument (which it needs to be). Your central claim is that we should focus on the similarities to better understand this universal phenomenon, yes? You are not being clear here. Death exists for as long as life exists. If you are talking about human death RITUALS, you have not made this clear. "With the evidence of the findings of burials" is very awkward and confusing.

You are not being clear here. Death exists for as long as life exists. If you are talking about human death RITUALS, you have not made this clear. "With the evidence of the findings of burials" is very awkward and confusing. by whom? This is passive voice (green highlight), but it's not just a stylistic nitpick here. I don't know who you are claiming is doing the "discussion."

Awkward passive voice. "The Community believes these men foresee . . ." This is not appropriate to the paper. 1. You have no citations, and this is not common knowledge. You must cite your source. 2. More important, this is summary without obvious purpose. This paper is not a book report or encyclopedia of death rituals from around the world. You have to make an argument. The argument we discussed was "focusing on similarities in death rituals, rather than on differences, helps us to better understand death as a universal human phenomenon." This section does not, in any obvious way, advance that argument.

This is inappropriate "and another thing" phrasing. Your paper needs to have a central claim in each paragraph and those claims need to build from paragraph to paragraph. You should never begin with "Another . . . ."

This entire section is also inappropriate to the assignment, and more important, this is a serious lapse of academic integrity. You are summarizing someone else's information without crediting them—this is a form of plagiarism

Despite the one citation, whose position in this section is confusing, this is also inappropriate. This paper cannot be summaries of funerary rites.

This is your first citation in several pages. Every single body paragraph needs to have at least one meaningful citation, and you need to contextualize each source. See my annotation on the Varga citation in your first paragraph. You haven't introduced the source, and it is not at all clear why you have a citation here, when you have not cited sources for most of the things you've said. None of this is appropriate, either. My detailed comments will end here. I will read through the rest of the paper to see if anything can be salvaged, but nothing up to this point, other than possibly the introduction, is useable for this paper.

You have not talked about what "roles" death rituals play in any clear way. You have summarized—largely without attribution—some death rites, and it is not clear to the reader why you chose those groups and not others.

You have not talked about what "roles" death rituals play in any clear way. You have summarized—largely without attribution—some death rites, and it is not clear to the reader why you chose those groups and not others. As dissussed above :Phrasing like this is never appropriate in a short piece. It is your job to provide robust, logical organization. Again, this is inappropriate phrasing. You are conveying to the reader that there is no logic or purpose to what you are summarizing.

This COULD have been an argument—that all humans are aware of death and all humans have rites of passage for the dead; that is not what the body of this paper is. This is incorrect, even by what you have written here. You have summarized nonreligious rites that have no concept of a life after death. I don't know what this means—they're rites of passage for the dead. Not everyone mourns, but it's obvious that the focus is on the dead. Again, if you had made the argument that the details of rituals may appear very different, but the similarities are the most important features, that would have been appropriate. That's not what you have done here.