Skip to toolbar

I read an article from The Guardian, “Sheffield’s LGBT-only halls were called a ghetto – but a year on, they’re thriving,” and I felt that the article was well-written and that the author’s resources came straight from those who were instantly effected by this change. To add, I had never heard of such a change, as this was in the United Kingdom, but I had some ill-feelings at the beginning due to the fact that people were separated due to their sexuality. It was easy to follow the concepts that the author was trying to get across, she wanted people, like myself, to view the separate flats as a good thing instead of a ghetto. The author could have used more quality sources to back up her point of view, along with the higher ups and their reasoning behind these separate flats. She did review several students who were immediately effected and made a solid safety point, but I still feel that this was starting a “separate, but equal” situation so I would need more references to back here good view of this. As far as a relationship between form and content, I feel that this was a solid news article with a smooth opening and closing argument, but could have used more in the middle.

The link to this article is https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/aug/23/sheffields-lgbt-only-halls-were-called-a-ghetto-but-a-year-on-theyre-thriving.

My second source for a peer review is a podcast by JMU Studio 395 on racism against the Japanese during World War II. I understood that they were discussing the issue of racism during this time, but I had a hard time coming up with why this is being brought up now by this author. Maybe, her point was to shed more light on this topic and she feels that the Japanese were never righted for this wrong. Even though it was never a stated fact that some of the Japanese were traitors, the United States took them as spies, threats, pests, and many other negative names. Many of them were treated horribly and lost their jobs and livelihoods, just for their Japanese cultures. The clarity could have been improved, the author was mumbling some, but I will cut her some slack due to the 11 minute podcast. I agree with what the author is saying, I just would have liked to have been able to know that this was a history lesson instead of informing me of today’s news. Since I did not have a clear vision of the thesis or the project, even though the title was “America- The Free or the Racist?,” I would have liked to have seen more resources and details from this author.