Update: we got an 83 on the revision :)

Original Copy:

Here is what Fastovsky had to say:

"So- what happened here? The references section contains no real literature references; it's all textbooks. That's simply not the expectation in this class (as you know).

A lot is missing that would be found in the scientific literature treating this region. That would include:
  • A detailed treatment of the rifting and its relationship to this (and other) basins;
  • The sedimentary sequence; and it's relationship to the rifting;
  • A detailed discussion of the paleoenvironments and biota, including some treatment of the paleogeography and stratigraphic sequence preserved in the CT valley;
  • The relationship between your measured section and what is known of the paleoenvironments (parenthetically, what is your measured section doing in the conclusions? [this was his mistake, he failed to actually look at the whole paper]);
  • The final part of the project uniquely assigned to your group (apparently he didn't notice the entire section on volcanism)

Each one of the subjects above should have been appropriately a subheading (they were) within your paper, and none even appears (false - there are 3 subheadings). Frankly, I'm somewhat aghast at the condition of this paper, and have to assume that something went horribly wrong in the writing of it. If that is true, it would have been nice if someone had come to me and talked to me about any problem that materialized. As it is, you've left me very little choice; what I have in my hand -without any mitigating explanation- is something that would have been OK for the first problem, but appears anomalous at this late stage in the semester. At this point, and in the absence of any extra information, I can't see why I should expend more words critiquing your paper; the meat of this effort just isn't here.