review in 3 hours- 2 pages

1) Read the paper section both peer papers quickly BUT ATTENTIVELY. Make notes for when you write your own response. You may briefly note strengths as well as problems, but your main focus is offering suggestions that will allow your peer to make the paper better. You will write a one- to two-page peer letter or memo to each of two peers, and bring the completed, typed letters/memos to our next class. Put your name and the name of the peer you are responding to at the top of the first page. NOTE: I expect each peer to receive at least one FULL page of substantive commentary.

 

2) The first writer should begin discussion by asking for particular feedback he/she would like: the writer should comment upon what he/she is satisfied with, or where he/she had difficulty.

 

3) Peers should ask the writer questions: to elicit more detail, to find out why the writer made certain choices, to clarify the writer’s intention. Take notes to help you with your peer review.

 

Guidelines for peer review homework memos:

For this assignment, you will write a letter or memo to your peer, critiquing his or her rough draft. “To critique” means to discuss, in some detail, the strengths and weaknesses of the draft as you see them, and to offer specific suggestions for revision.

 

Briefly address the following issues:

 

STAKEHOLDERS

1.             
Does the writer describe general stakeholders and detail at least two organized stakeholder groups on each side of the issue?

2.             
Does the writer explain and contextualize each specific stakeholder group fully?

3.             
Does the writer seem to have a clear grasp of the important stakeholders, or are there important groups or perspectives missing?

 

ARGUMENTS/CRITICAL ANALYSIS

4.             
Does the writer clearly explain the main arguments on each side? (Remember that arguments are the reasons each side gives to try to persuade people to agree with them.) Does the writer clearly and convincingly explain what types of evidence each side uses for each argument? Does the writer develop each argument in its own paragraph?

5.             
Does the writer develop a clear, insightful, and compelling critical analysis of those arguments? Does the writer identify strengths and weaknesses of each argument on each side? Is this a truly thoughtful, thoroughly researched analysis, or does it seem perfunctory?

 

VALUES

6.             
Does the writer clearly identify each side’s primary values?

7.             
Does the writer provide convincing evidence from the stakeholders’ own language or some other compelling explanation to explain how he or she identified those values?

 

GENERAL

8.             
Does the writer maintain an unbiased tone?

9.             
Does the writer use appropriate, credible support for each claim and point that needs proof? Does the writer clearly cite sources when needed?

10.          
Is the Works Cited section in correct form, and does it include at least 12 sources? Do they include two scholarly sources, two books, and six activist or government websites?

11.          
If the draft has significant and/or recurring grammatical or MLA format problems, mention that. DO NOT attempt to copy edit your peer’s paper.

 

ORGANIZATION

12.          
Does the writer have clear topic sentences for each paragraph? Does each topic sentence summarize (not just introduce) the main point of its paragraph?

13.          
Is there one and only one main point per paragraph?

14.          
Are the paragraphs in a logical order? Does the writer use appropriate transitions?