Project 1 Peer Review

Directions for Peer Review

I will post the finalized peer review sheet here, which you can access under "Resources" at the top menu bar. When you go to do peer review, follow these steps:

1. First, read through your peer's wiki, paying particular attention to the summary of good writing at the end and any questions they may have included there.
2. Download your peer's paper (here's how), and read through it once.
3. Read through it again, answering the questions on the peer review sheet thoroughly and completely, either by inserting comments in the margins of your peer's document or by typing answers to the questions at the bottom of your peer's document.
4. Save the document.
5. Upload the saved, reviewed article back to your peer's page, following the directions for uploading a file.

On workshop day, you need to bring either a computer or a printout so you can access your comments on your peers' papers. A thorough, complete peer review (that is, typed comments) and participation in the in-class workshop will earn you 4 participation points per peer. As per the syllabus, if you must be absent, you can still earn credit if you upload your comments within 24 hours of class time.

Peer Review Questions

1. Where does the author describe the state of knowledge? How can the author clarify the relationships (the conversation) among sources? Where does he or she identify possible knowledge gaps? Are these appropriate? How can the author clarify knowledge gaps to better set up his or her argument?
2. How does the author make use of specialized terminology? Are definitions of specialized terminology used effectively, especially considering the expert audience? How can the author make better use of definition and apposition? Which ones need emphasis? What are the best methods for emphasizing for the goals of this paper?
3. What are some recognizable stylistic choices the author has made in the article? Highlight these choices in bold, and insert a comment: is this stylistic choice effective? Why or why not? For example, consider focusing on the following stylistic choices:
   1. If the discursive or methodological I is used, what is its purpose in the article?
   2. Which nominal styles are embodied in the voice of the paper that make it effective for the determined audience?
   3. What types of limiting expressions or modals are employed in the paper, and what makes them effective/ineffective?
   4. Where does the author use emphasis to highlight key points? Where could the author do a better job emphasizing key points, and how?
4. How does the author make his or her argument clear and concise? What are organizational changes that the author could make to improve his or her argument? What did you think the direction of the paper was? How did it meet your expectations, and where did it stray from those expectations? How could the author make better use of forecasting to give you a sense of the paper's direction?
5. How does the author attempt to fill the knowledge gap? Does that attempt lead logically to the conclusion? Does the conclusion use the argument to offer a moralizing statement, and if so, what is its message? Do you find it convincing given the claims made in the paper?
6. Type a paragraph at the end of the paper in which you offer some overall thoughts: what works well here? What is effective? What needs work? Does the paper seem appropriately tailored to a specialized audience? How could it be improved?