2 nd Draft Peer Review …Stuff’s gettin’ serious now!

Before we begin, write three questions for the peer reviewer to answer at the end of this process.

Let’s start by trading papers and reviewing the rules of peer review: 1.Be constructive! You’re trying to help the person write the best paper possible. 2.Be clear! Simply writing “AWK” or “Vague” may not be sufficient (I know… I know… mea culpa, friends!); wherever possible, give specific, articulate feedback. 3.Be consistent! Make sure that your feedback constitutes a reliable perspective. 4.Be colorful! Use different colors in your underlining! Because fun! 5.Be supportive! Choose language that affirms the writer.

Step One: Read through the essay from beginning to end. Record your dominant impression in 2-3 sentences at the end.

Step Two: Let’s evaluate the intro paragraph. Consider the following: Consider the following: Does your peer mention the novel and author? Does your peer mention the novel and author? Does he/she express the theme clearly and succinctly? Does he/she express the theme clearly and succinctly? Now underline the thesis: Now underline the thesis: Can you condense the sentence(s) without losing complexity? Can you condense the sentence(s) without losing complexity? Can you identify the claims that will eventually become stages of thought? Can you identify the claims that will eventually become stages of thought? How explicitly does the thesis reference contemporary relevance? How explicitly does the thesis reference contemporary relevance? Write a sentence or two advising your peer on his/her intro paragraph. Write a sentence or two advising your peer on his/her intro paragraph.

Step Three: Let’s look at stages of thought (structure). Underline the 2-3 sentences that introduce each stage of thought; use a different color for each stage. Then—using the color that matches each stage—underline the topic sentence(s) for paragraphs that fall under the umbrella of each stage of thought. Your essay should unfold in a logical, purposeful manner. It should match your thesis in that it seeks to prove everything necessary to validate your thesis. The information should flow purposefully. Do your stages of thought unfold sequentially? How purposeful is the organization of this essay? How well does the body of this essay fulfill the promise of the thesis? Write a sentence or two describing the structure.

Step Four: Let’s evaluate synthesis. Go through the essay and highlight all direct quotations and otherwise cited material. Go through the essay and highlight all direct quotations and otherwise cited material. Evaluate the following: Evaluate the following: Are all of your sources tagged? Are all of your sources tagged? Have they been cited according to the MLA guidelines? Have they been cited according to the MLA guidelines? Are quotes blended effectively? Are quotes blended effectively? Are they appropriately set up? Are quotes followed by effective warrants? Are they appropriately set up? Are quotes followed by effective warrants? Write a sentence or two advising your peer on his/her synthesis.

Step Five: Let’s consider arguments. 1.Consider the first sentence of each paragraph. Can you label them as they may have been labeled on your peer’s outline? 2.Take a look at the topic sentences. Are they paired with an effective clincher sentence at the paragraph’s end. In other words, can we easily recognize the purpose of each paragraph AND evaluate its effectiveness? If we only read the topic sentences and clinchers, would we have an accurate idea of the essay’s argument? 3.Look at the support in each paragraph. Is it well-placed? Appropriate? Well-explained? Varied? 4.Does each paragraph help develop the thesis in a meaningful way? Write a sentence or two evaluating the effectiveness of the person’s argument.

Step Six: Let’s consider some miscellaneous concerns. Did the author use "the reader", "show", "tell", or "thing"? The answer should be no. Is the paper used the passive voice (i.e. PASSIVE: "A brilliant paper was written by Neil" ACTIVE: "Neil wrote a brilliant paper")? Is the paper used the passive voice (i.e. PASSIVE: "A brilliant paper was written by Neil" ACTIVE: "Neil wrote a brilliant paper")? Did the author use a VARIETY of active, interesting verbs? Are there any unnecessary/repetitive words or phrases? Are there any repetitive or redundant ideas? Read the first few words in every sentence written in two consecutive paragraphs. Does the writer fall into a repetitive pattern of sentence construction? (Ex: subject—verb) Write a sentence or two commenting on these stylistic concerns.

Step Seven: Let’s look at mechanics more carefully. Read through the essay again. Make note of any grammatical errors. Read through the essay again. Make note of any grammatical errors. Consider the author’s diction. Do you have any advice for tone, word selection, or use of jargon? Consider the author’s diction. Do you have any advice for tone, word selection, or use of jargon?

Last step: Answer the person’s questions! 1.On the back, read over your partner’s questions. Then write responses to those questions. 2.Next, write one sentence expressing the paper’s best quality. 3.Next, write one sentence directing the author in revision. Where should he/she focus first? 4.Finally, write something nice about your partner. 5.Now meet with the person. Go over the comments. High five! Hugs! We’re almost done!