Robert’s definition was informative about how a hotdog is made. The sentences below gave me a gross but good idea of the process.

“Hot dogs are a processed meat product made by mixing chopped meat with various curing ingredients, flavorants, and colorants. The meat is then stuffed in casings, cooked, removed from the casing, and put in the final package.”

I was not sure who the audience was for the paper it seemed very general and not specified. I suppose the audience could be people interested in meat and processing of meet. That is a very slime audience however. Also those people who are doing research would probably need more factual, detailed information.

I liked how Robert sited where the definitions were from but I think there might have been too many from the same dictionary. I do not think that these definitions were necessary. "Generally regarded as unhealthy insofar as most have high sodium, fat and nitrate content.

and “due to changing dietary preferences in the U.S., manufacturers have turned to turkey, chicken, or vegetarian meat substitutes as well as lowering the salt content.”

I would pick maybe two or three definitions that apply to your definition of a hotdog. I might use these two definitions “usually placed hot in a soft, sliced bun of the same shape as the sausage, and optionally includes condiments and toppings” combines with there is “no fixed specification for hot dog meat, with pork and beef being the most popular”.

The purpose of the paper is to define a hotdog and it does but mostly with dictionary terms. It also tells us about how the hotdog is made but that is not defining the word. That is one approach but defining a hotdog is not really a serious or often thought about topic. Another approach to the definition is to make it amusing. The picture at the top of the page made me think the paper was going to be definition about a little wiener dog in a bun costume. That is probably the way I would have gone. It is just something different. The paper did give a specific definition about what a hotdog is to Robert and that was the goal of the paper.

The organization of the paper might have been better if the definitions were numbered or just separated more. Also there were a few grammatical errors. Overall I would give the paper a 16 out of 20.