Since the paper should be centered on the psychoanalytic theory, the introduction giving the biography of Sigmund Freud is potentially unnecessary. In the introduction, the writer should not have expounded the three levels of the brain according to Freud. The second paragraph talking about Plato breaks the follow of the paper that was initiated in the first paragraph. Moreover, the paragraphs have not been arranged chronologically. For instance, the paragraph under the subtopic ‘Ego’ should be placed immediately after the part under the sub topic ‘Id’. A large percentage of the paragraphs lack topic sentences. In addition, a lot of ideas have been repeated in different paragraphs.
Most of the quotation marks have not been used correctly. There are a lot of articles missing, as well. Most importantly, there is a sentence starting with ‘but’, which is not advisable for most formal writings. Proper punctuation within the sentences is recommended, as well. Needless to mention, the word ‘Id’ has been repetitively written wrongly.
The problems pertaining to paragraphing are serious for the piece hence rendering this piece unsuitable for publishing.
The most conspicuous problem with regards to this piece concerns citation. From the way the bibliography is written, it seems the writer intended to use MLA citation. A good number of the in-text citations and entries in the works cited list has not been written correctly. There are a few grammatical errors relating to the use of articles and verb form use. For instance in the sentence ‘…..later be Freudian theory because Sigmund Freud claimed to not be influenced by anyone’, the infinitive verb ‘to’ has not been properly placed. The word 'very' has also been overused. In addition, some of the paragraphs are exceptionally short. However, despite these problems, the ideas are properly stated and a revised version of this piece is worth publishing.
Dreams and Dream Interpretations
In this piece a lot of personal pronouns, like we, our and you, which are not usually recommended for formal writings, have been used. It is unnecessary to mention Id, Ego and Super Ego on the introduction of this chapter. There are a lot of problems committed that relate to tenses. This is in regards to the fact that some of the sentences have wrongfully been stated in future continuous tenses. Most importantly, there are gross problems with the citation; most of the sources in the reference list have not been cited in the text. Again, majority of the sources in the reference list have not been written correctly. It should also be noted that the paragraphing is poor; most of the paragraphs do not have aptly stated topic sentences, the ideas are not flowing in a chronological manner.
It follows, therefore, that the paper is not fit for publishing.
Examining “The Philosophy” in Psychoanalytic Theory: Through the lens of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alred Adler, Karen Horney, Erich Fromm, Erik Erikson and Anna Freud
The piece contains a lot of personal pronouns, which are only allowed in reflective writings. The words ‘very’, ‘greatly’ and ‘really’ have been over used. The sentences containing these words should be revised to include appropriate replacements to these words. Further, contractions like ‘won’t’ should be written in full.
It is commendable that most of the in-text citation have been done properly except for some few like ‘Boeree, 1997, 2006’ in which the comma separating the two years should be replaced with a semicolon. Again, the ideas and paragraphs (except for some remarkably short paragraphs) have been arranged in a chronological manner giving the paper the much needed flow. Otherwise, a revised version of this paper is worth publishing.
The first paragraph needs proper editing. Some unnecessary words have been incorporated into most of the sentences, words that only amount to wordiness. Moreover, the ideas in the first three paragraphs are not outlined in a chronological manner. Some ideas, for instance, Wundt being the father of psychology should have been included in the paragraph that talks about the founders of psychology.
A few paragraphs do not have topic sentences and are not arranged properly. For instance, the paragraph talking about ‘Psychology Today’ should not be placed between the paragraphs discussing ‘Gestalt Psychology’. Most of the ideas have been repeated in the paper; the origin of Gestalt psychology has been discussed more than twice in the paper; Wundt has been discussed more than once in paper. I addition, the discussion about his childhood life comes at the wrong time. Such discussions are usually done at the beginning of the paper and not after the person has already been discussed together with some of his works.
Contradicting ideas; for instance saying the Gestalt psychology was taken to America in the 1930s by its founders who escaped from Germany in fear of the unfriendly political environment that existed in Germany and saying in another paragraph that Gestalt psychology in America was authored at Cornell University in 1924.
Punctuations marks within sentences, especially commas, have been omitted resulting into a lot of errors like run-on sentences. For example, in the sentence ‘Unfortunately this was not very popular among the German Scholars because many opposed the ideas’, the introductory phrase ‘unfortunately’ should be emphasized using commas. This should be extended to another large number of introductory phrases used throughout the paper. In most instances, hyphens are used when one wants to give additional information. However in page 43, there is a hyphens have been used wrongly in the sentence ‘Such an achievement of the learner is named— "insight"—but it is not explained'.
Commas should be used to separate the surname of the author from the year of publication for instance ‘Steven 2009’. Additionally, for some sources, only one author has been cited instead of all the authors. For example in the sentence; ‘As Perls asserted, “A main personality conflicts is that between the “top dog” versus the “underdog” part of a person” (Levitsky & Perls, 1970)’- the sentence is introduced by only mentioning one author while, in actual sense, the authors are two. Some of the in-text citations do not have page numbers or year of publication. In the same light, it should be noted that in-text citations only make use of the authors surnames and not all the all names of a given author-the in-text citation ‘Michael Sokal, 1988’ violates any citation-style postulates. Inconsistency in the citation style; it is hard to tell whether the paper is formatted in a particular citation style, for example, APA style. The problem is further seen in the reference list. In light of in-text citations and most of the entries in the reference list, it can be noted that the paper was meant to be formatted in APA style. However, some of the entries in the reference list have first names written in full. Still on citation, the sources of the pictures and diagram used in the paper should be cited in-text as well as in the reference list. Again, while citing web sources, it should be noted that a lot of bibliographic information should be included. Mostly, writers are discouraged from citing links in text. The titles of the books written by Kant and the others (page 16 and 19) should at least be written in italics instead of being underlined. In formal writings do not allow the use of words like vice versa.
Generic words like ‘simple’ and ‘huge’ have been used repetitively. In most cases, such words can easily be overused. It follows, therefore, that synonyms to these words should be use to replace these words. Additionally, there is a sentence with a conjunction ‘and’ at the beginning; conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence are not permissible in formal writings.
Even though the paper might have a plethora of problems with regards to paragraphing, citation and punctuation, it is worth noting that the ideas and paragraphs are logically connected to one another hence making this paper worthy of publishing though after the errors have been eliminated. It is also commendable how the pictures have been used to support most of the ideologies in the paper.