COMMUNITY RHETORICS:
|
Writing for Real |
Name of Author: Ken |
|
Spring 2003 |
Date Paper Received: May 29, 2003 |
The peer review is an opportunity for you to help your classmates develop their thinking and writing as well as to hone your own editing skills, not merely to catch obvious shortcomings. Be honest. Be constructive. If you think something in the paper you are reviewing is not working well, say so, but be sure to support your criticisms with clear reasons, specific examples, and, if possible, suggestions for improvement. Please comment specifically on the following areas, but do not feel you need to limit yourself to them. Feel free to write further or continued comments on the author's draft and/or on the flip-sides of these sheets. Your peer review effort will be evaluated, though not letter-graded. 1) Who is the author's audience? What is his/her purpose? Does she establish exigence (relevance, what's at stake, the reader's need to know) effectively in the opening ¶s?
He talks about the American Red Cross and the World Wars, so the audience is anyone related to those two. He also mentions current events like 9/11 and so the paper demonstrates that it is important in current events. The fact in the beginning is good because it shows the reader that the ARC is a huge organization and that it has affected many people that they know.
2) Does the author establish the subject, state the key question or problem, early enough on? When you have finished the paper, look back at the introduction. Did it give you a good idea of what the author actually did address in the rest of the paper? What is the author's thesis? Is it deductive or inductive? Does the thesis come in an appropriate place?
The key question is what is the effect of the World Wars on the ARC? The introduction definitely explained the topic, and did say how the topic would be discussed (i.e. structure, size, public support). The paper is deductive, the thesis stated at the beginning that these were the ways that the red cross was affected. The "so what" is that it has better prepared it for events today. Although the thesis is stated, the rest of the paper goes about in an exploratory way. Although the research is not obvious, the argument may be obvious in that no one would think that the World Wars did not help the ARC prepare for future disasters.
3) Does the paper reach a conclusion or does it merely stop? Does the conclusion repeat the introduction? Do introduction and conclusion fit together naturally as a kind of question and answer? Are conclusions well-earned?
The conclusion repeats the introduction, but it is a sort of summary of results, which may be appropriate in this case. There is also an interesting point (The red cross's goal is to put itself out of business) which could be explained a little bit more as an interesting ending. Also, the author asks more questions at the end, and partially answer them.
4) Does the author provide necessary background information? Is there enough? Is any superfluous? (Consider the author's audience.)
There is a couple pages of background info. Some of it may not be necessary as in the Clara Barton information. Establishing the purpose of the ARC is necessary, and what its goals are. At the same time however, the reader only needs to know what is necessary for the rest of your argument, so its good that you describe it as a small organization (which later grows) and as a centralized national organization (which later decentralizes).
5) Is the information organized in the most effective way? Do the ideas follow each other in a logical, understandable way, supporting the central assertions? Does the author provide clear transitions, relating ideas clearly? Are there any places that are confusing?
I was a little confused about what you were talking about when. At some points there was a little jumping back and forth between structure and popularity. Also, how were the two wars different -- how did they each contribute differently? The transitions between paragraphs were good, and I like how you would outline what you are going to say in the next few paragraphs (i.e. The two world wars must be looked at separately -- and then you talked about them separately)
6) Are the points that the author is trying to make developed to their fullest extent? Does the paper bring up any interesting points that you would like to see developed further? Is there needless material that should be omitted?
The point at the end, about putting itself out of business, could be explained better -- it doesn't nnecessarily need to be developed that much, but maybe could be covered in a paragraph. You could expand more on how it handles disasters differently, for example, before the world wars, how would it have handled the fire in Palo Alto? Maybe you chose not to include blood donation, but isn't that a big part of its preparedness for situations? There was some repetition about it being decentralized.
7) Are the author's arguments supported adequately with evidence and/or examples? Is evidence relevant? convincing? Does the author provide clear context for evidence, introducing it clearly and following it with comment/analysis?
Yes! He has a lot of good data and examples ranging from statistics to pictures of advertisements to first hand sources. The analysis of the data is good, especially how the decentralization gave them more leeway, and showing how public support grew over time.
8) Does the author integrate source material -- facts & figures, quotes, paraphrases, and summaries -- fluidly in his/her text? Does s/he over-rely on quotes? Are there any quotes that might as well be paraphrased?
The facts and quotes are appropriately used and work well into the text. There is no reliance on quotes. I like how you compare World War 1 to WW2 by using the same types of facts, and the same types of advertisements. It shows the differences in statistics but similarities in methods.
9) Has the author used visual or audio media effectively, as an integral part of the information or analysis provided in the paper? Has the author integrated these sources effectively? Has s/he explained their relevance and/or analyzed them clearly and persuasively? Has s/he labled visual media clearly as correctly as figures and cited visual or audio media correctly?
The pictures are pretty convincing and are nicely selected since they help to prove his point. Maybe you could put the date that the posters were made to give them some context. The religious symbol advertisement was very well selected for your discussion of religion in the government.
10) Are there any grammatical or mechanical errors (including problems with punctuation) that appear more than a couple times each that the author will need to focus attention on in rewriting? Are there any consistent problems with diction, usage, or words misused that you can point out to the author?
Some of the sentences are wordy which are noted in the text. The sources need to be cited differently (period comes after the parentheses). Some other comments are written on the draft.
11) Beyond mechanical and grammatical errors, comment on the author's writing style. Does he/she vary sentence structure? Are there too many short, choppy sentences or ones that are overly complex and need to be broken up? Does the author choose precise words? Is there any wordiness?
The sentence structure is varied. I think your style is formal which is appropriate for this paper. The paragraphs are well broken up for the most part. There is a little bit of wordiness and awkward phrasing . Just say things how you would say it to us in person. Don't worry too much about encoding your message in formal language.
12) Does the writer use clear and accurate parenthetical documentation? Is/are the bibliography or works cited page/pages in correct form?
You will have to look at the parenthetical documentation again, I think we went over it in class a little.
13) How, specifically, can the author improve this paper?
I like the paper. I think reorganizing the findings is the key. Maybe outlining your paper after you have written it to see if there is a strong structure. So First you talk about structure, size and popularity in WW1, then you talk about it in WW2, then you talk about it in recent events. Also, maybe your argument can be more argumentatively phrased -- if you know what I mean. I can't think of an example but maybe something like "Without WW1 and WW2, the ARC would have collapsed it would not be able to deal with current disasters" or something like that, where you show that WW1 and WW2 were necessary for the ARCs success today -- and how that is ironic, because the ARC's success should be measured in how small it is, not how big.
14) What are the draft's particular strengths?
Great use of data. The style is very good, and very easy to read yet formal. The material is presented in an interesting way, holding the reader's attention. The paper uses a historical context to explain current issues.
PEER REVIEWER: Attach this sheet to the author's draft before you return it; sign and date it on the lines below.
AUTHOR: When you turn in your final draft, include both the peer review copy of your rough draft and this form. Name of Peer Reviewer ____________________________ Date __________________________________________