Study the following text and example summary again and decide whether the summary meets the requirements of good summary writing.
Original text
Over the centuries of contact with Europeans and other groups, such as Nguni-speaking farmers and slaves of diverse national origins brought to the Cape, the San of southern Africa have been identified by numerous different terms. Diverse ethnonyms, or appellations applied to ethnic groups, were used. They can be understood in terms of a typology of ethnonyms that has been developed by academics. Some ethnonyms used for the San have been xenonyms, names used to label “strange” or “foreign” groups. The names can be constructed from words taken from the ethnic group that is being described, thus an auto-xenonym, or can be ascribed, thus come from another language. Other ethnonyms denote the language spoken by the people in question, such as Nharo or Ju/’hoansi, and are thus philological terms or glottonyms. Another number of ethnonyms applied to the San involve academic conventions or are the result of the attempt by researchers to find politically correct terms. “Bushmen,” “San,” the Afrikaans word “Boesman,” the Nguni “Abathwa” and the Tswana “Basarwa” are some of the terms most commonly applied to the San. Each of them is used in different settings and can have both positive and negative connotations. For instance, the everyday Afrikaans “Boesman” or the colloquial English “Bushmen” denotes a person with a particular set of racial features that are not favoured by the dominant portion of society. This appellative is hardly ever used in a flattering or laudatory way.
[Ellis, W.F. 2015. “Ons is Boesmans: commentary on the naming of Bushmen in the southern Kalahari.” Anthropology Southern Africa 38(1&2): 120-133.]
Summary
Ellis argues that there are several terms used to classify the South African San people. The names assigned to the San people denote ethnic group, spoken language, terms created by research or an attempt at more politically correct terminology. The context determines the use of terminology.
Sentences are copied directly from the original text.
The order of the information differs from the original.
The summary contains information that was not in the original text.
The summary contains only some paraphrasing (i.e. information written in the student’s own words).
The summary contains too much detail; not only the main points.
This is a good summary.