Example Term Papers

These are some of the better papers that have been handed in in
past semesters. Note, however, that these papers are far from
perfect. I'm really hoping that you will provide me with some
better examples this semester! Also note that the style and
formatting of these papers don't conform to the standards we are
using this semester.

Remember, there is no one correct way to say anything. There

is no one correct way to order or word your paper. There are,
however, ways that are clearly wrong. And, in most cases, there
is only one way to spell a given word! Most of you have probably
written less than a handful of term papers. Writing clearly and
concisely is more difficult than you may think. Remember not to
feel too bad if a fellow student, Writing Fellow, or professor has a
large number of "negative" comments on a paper you think of as
being nearly perfect. It's like playing music. If you've never
spent much time listening to the symphony, not only will you
have a tough time playing classical music well, you probably will
have a hard time even knowing if you sound well. Since the
purpose of your paper is to convey information to other people,
other people's opinions of your work matter! Have other's read
your paper, and listen to their comments. Accepting criticism is
not easy, but it's the only way to learn to write.

A Paper on Gravity Waves

gravwaves2.pdf

A Paper on Acoustic Charge Transport

act.pdf

A Paper on Dark Mater

darkmater.pdf

Another Paper on Gravity Waves

gravwaves.pdf
Critique:

This is a really good paper, so now lets trash it. Seriously, I

though it would be helpful for you if you could see a critique of
this paper so that you could more easily see some of the things
that were done right and that were done wrong.

Overall this is a very good paper. It is well organized, focused,

and well polished (i.e., good grammar, good spelling,
transitions between different discussions, etc.). As a result, it
flows well --- it is easy and enjoyable to read. The topic is
relevant and reasonably well focused. It could be a little more
focused, and could use a stronger thesis statement. It is
obvious from the text that the authors have a fairly good
understanding of the subject, and for the most part their
science and reasoning is sound.
Take a good look at the abstract. It is a very good one. (It's
not very flashy, and it wouldn't make a good advertisement for
a TV show, but that's not the purpose of the abstract.) It
clearly, concisely, and in order tells us what the paper will
discuss. If I were doing research and wanted to know specific
things about a specific topic, this abstract would let me know
right away if the paper contains what I'm looking for.
On the second page, the body of the paper begins. Take a
look at the first two "introduction" paragraphs. They give a
description of what gravity waves are, a brief history of gravity
waves, and a brief note as to why attempts to detect them are
important. This introduction is very good. It contains,
however, too much information in too little space. If this were
your paper, I'd recommend either expanding the size of the
introduction, or, even better, tightening the focus and leaving
out some information. Without focus, papers tend not to flow
well and are harder to read and understand. Although it is
not necessary to write the word "introduction," at the start
of your paper (in bold, underlined, and written in day-glow
red) , it is important to start off the paper with an
introduction to give the reader the necessary background
and to explain the motivation for the paper.
I would have liked to see a better description of what a gravity
wave is in the introduction, since gravity waves are central to
the paper! What is actually oscillating in a gravity wave?
The third paragraph makes a transition from the introduction to
the rest of the paper, telling us what they are going to discuss.
Unfortunately, they only mention one source of gravity waves,
while their paper goes on to discuss other sources and other
topics as well. A good one or two sentence thesis statement is
needed before they end their introduction. Something like...
"In this paper we will describe five types of gravitational wave
sources: orbiting masses, coalescence, mass transfer, ... , as
well as several proposed methods of gravity wave detection."
Notice how the descriptions of the various means of generating
gravity waves are presented in a nice orderly way. The
information is presented in a concise way. This part of the
paper flows very well --- you learn a lot of information without
expending much time or effort to read or understand it.
Also notice that each new concept has at least one reference --
- letting us know where they learned about it. Unless the idea
you are discussing is your own original research, you should
reference the source where you obtained the information.
One of the things I dislike about this paper is the way in which
the figures are presented and referenced. Each figure, table,
etc., should be labeled with a number and a caption, i.e., "FIG.
1. Artists depiction of mass transfer between two gravitational
wells. Mass at the outer edge of the larger body is captured by
stronger gravitational pull of the smaller but denser body."
It is best to refer to a figure using it's label rather than it's
position on the page. For example, rather than saying "in the
figure below" or, as is done here, "The following diagram
illustrates...", it would be better to say "in figure 1" or "Figure 1
illustrates..."
Give credit where credit is due. When you borrow a figure
from another source, you should say something like, "Figure
reproduced from [8]" or "Figure reproduced from reference 8"
in the figure caption. It is not enough to just put in a reference
without explicitly stating that the figure comes from that
reference. For example, a caption like this, "FIG. 1. The
transfer of mass between two gravitational wells [8]." leaves
the reader wondering if the actual figure comes from reference
8, or whether reference 8 simply discusses the topic or
contains a similar figure which inspired this one.
In the first paragraph of the fourth page the focus and flow is
diminished a bit. The sentence "As in any wave-like signal, a
gravitational wave has a characteristic frequency and
amplitude" conveys little information. Worse, it interrupts the
train of thought --- the sentences before and after really need
to go together. Finally, it disagrees with what comes next. If a
wave "chirps," it can't be described by a single frequency or
amplitude.
There needs to be a better transition from the discussion of
gravity wave generation to the discussion of detection. Don't
ever just stop talking about one thing and start on another.
Help the reader anticipate where you are going.
Quoting Kip Thorne is a nice touch. When an expert can say
something much better than you can, it's okay to quote them.
Why write a phrase in your own words when someone else has
already stated it perfectly! Furthermore, when you quote a
recognized expert, it adds a certain assurance that what you
are describing is not nonsense. Care should be taken,
however! In this case, they did an excellent job. However,
students often put quotes into their papers not because the
quote fits into the discussion, but because they think it is clever
or because they think it would be neat to have words by
someone cool like Einstein in their paper. Don't stretch your
discussion to fit a quote. Select the quotes that fit into your
discussion. One of the hardest things you'll have to do as you
write papers is to leave out really cool things. After searching
for days for that one special quote that you remember hearing,
it's tough not to put it into the paper. But if it doesn't fit, you'd
better leave it out!
Doesn't the last sentence of that paragraph, "We show below a
diagram..." seem anticlimactic? Never start or end a
paragraph with an "oh, by the way" sentence.
I love how they discuss Weber bars by first giving a general
description, then going into details, and then describing in
chronological order how different improvements were made.
Good structure makes a paper fun to read!
The quote starting "ALLEGRO has had unprecedented
immunity..." seems to me like an example of a good quote
which they should have had the guts to throw out. It is related
to what they are discussing, but is long and goes into more
detail than the rest of their discussion. It is nothing too
impressive, and I think that they could have paraphrased it and
said it better! In general, long quotes should be avoided
unless they really add something to the discussion.
The phrase "quadrupole vibration modes" should probably be
rephrased using less technical words. I would expect that
almost every professional physicist in the world knows about
quadrupole modes. But the audience for this paper is 222
students who haven't studied vibrating sphere's or multi-pole
expansions. Furthermore, they never explain why these
particular modes are important. I'm guessing that they didn't
know why. So rather than find out why, or ignore the fact
entirely, they parroted some technical jargon that they had
read. At least that's what it would look like to the professor
grading the paper. Students often give in to the temptation of
using technical words to look smart. The fact is, using
technical words incorrectly or using them when they don't add
to the discussion makes you look... well... the opposite.
By page 8 they are using quotes way too much. If you can say
it just as well yourself, say it yourself!
The final paragraph is a conclusion. The conclusion here is
kind of weak. In a conclusion you should briefly sum up what
you have discussed and, more importantly, the conclusions
you have drawn. It usually does not need to be very long. No
new concepts or ideas should be introduced in the conclusion -
-- it's not fair to introduce an idea without giving the reader
adequate explanation. If there is an idea which you think is
important enough to the paper to be mentioned briefly, but
which does not merit much discussion, it probably will work
better in the introduction or somewhere in the body of the
paper rather than in the conclusion.
Note the use of "ibid." in the references. This is preferred by
some journals, but I personally think it is confusing and a waste
of space. I have clearly stated how I want references done in
this assignment --- make sure you follow those guidelines.
Notice how many web pages are cited. Yet only one article in
print is cited! The web is a good source of easy to read and
understand information, and the web pages all appear to be at
reputable universities. Nevertheless, there is no peer review of
the web. You can say anything you like there, be it true or not.
So I would have taken some serious points off of this paper
after looking at their bibliography! Another reason to limit web
citations is that I want you all to learn how to find periodical
articles and to get familiar with the most important physics
journals. By the way, if you download an article from a
reputable journal's web page, those count as journal citations
and not web citations, and they should be listed in your
bibliography in the format of a journal citation (with the authors,
title, journal name, volume, etc), not simply as a URL. There
are several e-journals in existence now which are only
available online (Optics Express, published by the Optical
Society of America is one example). They are still journals,
however, not just random web pages. The articles in them are
read and screened by editors, and many of these e-journals
are even peer reviewed. These journals are as valid as print
journals. Once again, they should be cited as a journal, not as
a URL. For example...
Incorrect:

[4] http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-2-8-
299 or
[4] D.S. Durfee, W. Ketterly, "Experimental studies of
Bose-Einstein
condensation,"http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=
OPEX-2-8-299
Correct:
[4] D.S. Durfee, W Ketterly, "Experimental studies of
Bose-Einstein condensation," Opt. Express 2, 299-313 (1998)
or
[4] D.S. Durfee, W Ketterly, "Experimental studies of
Bose-Einstein condensation," Opt. Express 2, 299-313
(1998)http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-
2-8-299

© Dallin S. Durfee 2004