1. Peer Reviewing Outlines
Ordering your thoughts. Ordering your life.

2. Let’s get this rodeo started!
On your first copy, write three questions you would like the reviewer to evaluate as he/she reads.
Now trade with a friendly neighbor.
Start reading! When you get to the end, write your dominant impression of the outline.

3. Next, let’s take a look at your thesis.
Evaluate the thesis based on the following qualities:
How clear is the argument?
How significant is this to contemporary society?
How specific is your word choice?
How economical is your sentence?
Now write one sentence evaluating the effectiveness of the person’s thesis.

4. Next, let’s consider the movement of your idea.
Consider first the thesis as it relates to the stages of thought.
How orderly is the overall structure of your outline? In other words, is your outline balanced, parallel, and consistent?
How essential is each stage of thought?
How purposeful is the ordering of your stages of thought? In other words, are your foundational ideas first?
Now write a sentence at the end of the outline evaluating the movement of the person’s idea.

5. Next, let’s consider your individual subheadings.
Look carefully at the first stage of thought. Consider how well…
…The tertiary points relate to the stage of thought (NOT NECESSARILY THE PRECEDING POINT!)…
…The tertiary points are ordered…
…Any tertiary points are supported by examples, citations, or other forms of support…
Now move on to the second stage of thought. Repeat that process again.
Repeat until you have looked at all stages of thought.
Finally, at the end, write a sentence evaluating the relationship between stages of thought and their subordinate points.

6. Next, let’s look at the support (research).
Underline every piece of research that is included in this outline. Consider:
…Is the research meaningfully linked to the thesis?
…Is the research truly contemporary?
…Is the research consistently formatted?
…Is the research appropriately placed in the outline (in other words, is the right research paired with the appropriate stage of thought)?
…Is the research SUBORDINATE to the outline’s argument, not the other way around?
Finally, at the end of the outline, write a sentence evaluating the person’s use of support.

7. Last, we’ll look at conventions and mechanics.
Read through the outline 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?

8. Now look at the questions the person wrote down
Now look at the questions the person wrote down. Take a moment to answer these questions.
Now meet with the person. Go over your comments and evaluations. Above all, consider the recommendations you’d make for their next draft.
Finally, write something nice about the person on the back of his/her outline. Sign your name so he/she knows you mean it!