WRITING for REAL:
Rhetorics of the Service-Learning Contact Zone

 Peer Review Questions
Draft of the Research Paper

Writing for Real	Name of Author ____________________
Spring 2003	Date Paper Received ________________

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

4) Does the author provide necessary background information? Is there enough? Is any superfluous? (Consider the author's audience.)

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

12) Does the writer use clear and accurate parenthetical documentation? Is/are the bibliography or works cited page/pages in correct form?

 

 

 

13) How, specifically, can the author improve this paper?

 

 

 

13) What are the draft's particular strengths?

 

 

 

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 __________________________________________