Re: My Class Assignment on Quality Assurance Gurus for Your Review - Help needed
Flattered as I may be about being cited, the method of citation of ALL of your references probably does not meet the school Standard, which is likely cited somewhere in your course materials.
The grammar and style generally is "peculiar" in the odd juxtaposition of future, present, and past tenses.
Check back with us and tell us whether your school follows a specific style book. If not, Strunk's
Elements of Style has held up well for nearly 90 years and is available for free online here (
https://www.bartleby.com/141/)
In fairness, the grade you received might or might not be deserved, based on whether the grade was on a curve and on the quality of writing of your class peers.
The style shown generally reminds me of high school kids "padding" papers with unnecessary and redundant words simply because they wanted to reach a "magic number" of 500 or 1,000 words listed in the assignment. Many adults do the same thing, compounding the sin by sitting with a thesaurus and throwing in "big words" because they think it makes the paper more "elegant."
I don't have time to proofread and copyread the entire paper, but you may get a sense of my thinking by comparing one of your original paragraphs with my redacted one.
Anna:
The aim of this report was to present us with a broad perspective of quality management with respect to the view of some of the renowned quality gurus. In this report I will be examining the key ideas and perceptions of each of the quality gurus. I will be doing this in order to achieve the goal of finding out which of the quality gurus provides a complete model for quality management. I will be comparing and contrasting the different models that each of the gurus have created. I will also be discussing the extent to which each of the models fit with the general model of management that is presented in the course study guide.
Wes:
This report presents a broad overview of the views of leading Quality gurus about Quality Management. I highlight the key points of each guru and compare each against the others to determine if any one of them presents a complete model for quality management. In addition, I compare the points of those gurus with the general management model of our course study guide.
Note: Although I have followed Anna's general statement by writing
any one of them presents a complete model
I do not agree we should be looking to see if any ONE guru makes a complete case, but rather would have put them in chronological, geographic, and economic context to show how each builds a little on preceding gurus and how each subsequent one diverges from previously accepted thinking.
I probably would present the key points in a matrix table to make the similarities and differences easier to view and understand and for the reader to accept my conclusions as presented in the paper.
Kidding aside, the content is not bad, but there are numerous typos and the grammar needs some work. You should read it over yourself.
It's worth noting the different gurus' particular contributions to today's quality assurance progress and theory. While doing so, you can remark on the geopolitical dynamics of quality assurance. For example, the biggest gurus from the 70's and 80's were Japanese, like Taguchi and Ishikawa. They contributed some of the most widely used quality management tools for decades. Be ready to comment on how their contributions happened and what led up to them. 
Having first generation quality students is not good enough. We must continue the principles and philosophies of the gurus.
