Looking at your work dispassionately….

Well, I took my own advice and dispassionately looked at my outline and discovered that there were two things that would make the paper stronger: 1/) change the focus from Grietje my great grandmother to Eda, her sister and 2.) reconfigure the outline to align the information more tightly.  I ended up with an outline that looked like this:

I.  Introduction

Hypothesis #1: Eda Mittjus/Muniga are the same person

II. Eda Mittjus/Muniga

i. background

ii. analysis

iii. conclusion

III. Eda (nee Wienenga) Eckhoff

(same 3 subcategories)

Summary of evidence and conclusion based on hypothesis

Hypothesis #2: Eda Mittjus/Muniga/Eckhoff is the sister of Grietje (nee Wienenga) Bode

IV. Grietje (nee Wienenga) Bode

(same 3 subcategories)

Summary of evidence and conclusion based on hypothesis

Coda: next steps that provides direct evidence to the conclusions.

This outline is much tighter.  I found I needed some additional information but I now have a working draft.

Happy hunting!

Jill

what I have done since the last post:  rewritten the case study (for the third time!)  Whew!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s