Your peer review has two parts: marking up the margins of the paper, and answering the following questions. ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO YOUR PEERS IN THE 2nd PERSON, e.g. “John, you should . . . I like how you . . . Have you considered. .?”
Begin by reading your peer’s introduction all the way through the last page.
Mark up to five areas that are difficult to read, or don’t make sense, or that you think have some grammatical/usage problems. Label those sentences in the margins with large, easy to find numbers: 1,2,3,4, and 5. You do not have to identify the grammar principles behind the errors or fix them… just locate problems. If you can, after each number provide a brief note to the writer about what you’re seeing (“I’m confused. Who is __?” “What does __ mean?” “Grammar.” “Transitions,” etc.).
Mark up to three spots in the paper where you’re seeing strengths (clear thesis, impressive style, compelling evidence, catchy visuals, etc.). Label these A, B, and C, and write a comment next to each explaining what you like.
Begin by reading your peer’s essay all the way through; as you read, keep in mind the four parts of the rubric: 1) Rhetoric and Communication, 2) Evidence and Information Literacy, 3) Style and Mechanics, and 4) Academic Ethos. After reading the whole essay (this includes looking at the Annotated Bibliography), grade each part based on your first impressions:
If you had to grade the rhetoric and communication right now based on the rubric, what grade would you give it?
If you had to grade the evidence and information literacy right now based on the rubric, what grade would you give it?
If you had to grade the style and mechanics right now based on the rubric, what grade would you give it?
If you had to grade the academic ethos right now based on the rubric, what grade would you give it?
Write a few “big picture” comments about the essay. Based on the rubric, what are its strengths? Weaknesses?
III. THESIS: WHY THIS IS/THESE ARE THE BEST SOLUTION(S), OR WHY SOLUTIONS WON’T WORK)
___ Causal (i.e., the solution will address the root cause of the problem)
___ Comparison/historical (i.e., the solution has worked before in another, similar context)
___ Coverage (i.e., the solution will cover the most people or the neediest people)
___ Cost/benefit analysis (i.e., benefits outweigh the costs [in terms of money, energy, time, people’s well-being, etc.])
___ Feasibility (the solution can be implemented quickly, cheaply, effectively; it has a lot of support; etc.)
___ Other: ________________________________________________________________
___ None of the above; it simply describes something the policy does without analyzing why this thing will best solve or mitigate the problem
Argument for the Solution to the Problem
Each paragraph in an academic essay should handle one main idea and be clearly connected to the overall thesis.
Does the writer use topic sentences that let you know what each paragraph will focus on? If not, which paragraphs need topic sentences? Comment upon them in the margins or in the space provided here.
Are there paragraphs in the essay that try to develop more than one main point? Please identify those paragraphs and provide any revision advice you have for revision, either here or in the margins.
Are any paragraphs included that are off-topic from the thesis? Suggest revisions
Evaluate the quality of the research and record your advice as you answer the questions below:
Record your advice about MLA formatting and the Annotated Bibliography (i.e., separate page, alphabetically listed, hanging indents, new sources marked with a *.)
If any Annotated Bibliography entries are lacking information or need revision, please let the author know here:
Questions to keep in mind when evaluating source quality: Are there enough sources? Is there an appropriate mixture of types of sources? (i.e, academic, commercial, government, organization) Are there recent sources? Record your advice about the quality of research behind your peer’s sources here:
Integration of Sources
Does the author establish the proper amount of credibility for his authorities (i.e. “John Edlund, Professor of Rhetoric at Cap Poly Pomona, argues that . . .”)? If not, suggest revisions, either here or in the margins.
Does the writer use the “three step” method of introduce/quote/explain? Do the explanations do more than just repeat what the quote said? If not, mark in the margins where more analysis is needed.
Quotations should only be used when the particular language of the source is important. Otherwise, information should be paraphrased. Are there too many quotes or are the quotes too long? Mark these in the margins.
Does the writer use proper MLA citation methods? Suggest revisions
If you have suggestions on sentence level revisions about how sources are integrated, mark them in the margins.
VII. TITLE COMMENTS
Now that you have reviewed the whole paper and have a very good idea what it’s about… what do you think of the author’s title? Does s/he have one? If so, does it summarize, in a nutshell, the paper? Suggest a new title if necessary.