Peer Response: Paper 1

Two benefits of peer response: 1) you get feedback from a classmate on your paper before submitting it for a grade; 2) examining the strengths and weaknesses of someone else's writing can help you recognize strengths and weaknesses in your own work.

How it works: You read your peer's draft critically, then respond with advice on how the paper might be improved.  When you're finished, give the paper and your written response back to the author.  Later, read your classmate's comments on your paper, and if you agree with the suggestions, revise your paper accordingly, addressing the problems and weaknesses noted by your peer.  Turn in your classmate's response to your work along with your paper when you turn in the final draft.

Get mean: While you might comment on the paper's strengths, your primary concern is to focus on its weaknesses, particularly in the areas of logic, structure, focus, and overall development of content.  Be tactful and considerate in your comments, but critical all the same—do it nicely, but "let 'em have it."  Praise and back-patting will not help your peer improve his or her paper.

Important: Write your response on notebook paper, not on this handout.  Indicate your name as the "Peer" and your peer's name as "Author."  Your response should be approximately 1½-2 pages, at least.

Instructions: Read the entire paper and then answer the following questions in order.  Your comments are not restricted to these questions alone, though: any and all advice you can offer that might help your classmate improve the paper is appropriate.

1. Evaluate the introduction and make suggestions for improvement. Consider:

Is the intro too brief (which would be anything less than roughly half a page)?  Suggest how the intro could be lengthened more effectively: make your suggestions specific—suggest specific, concrete ways of setting up the topic more effectively or in greater depth.  (Avoid saying simply "expand": suggest precisely how the paragraph might be expanded).

Any places where the intro is awkward or choppy?  Suggest transitions where needed.

Consider whether the paragraph flows smoothly into the central question at the end of the paragraph.  Suggest improvements for leading into the question.

Suggest improvements in the question itself.  Does it address the assigned topic squarely?  Does it set up the issue or topic that the body of the paper addresses?

Consider whether the introduction answers the question before raising it—which it should not do.  Point out specific sentences in the intro that appear to be answering the question, and suggest alternative strategies of developing the introduction as needed. 

2. Does the topic sentence in each paragraph answer the intro question directly?  Make suggestions for improving topic sentences.

3. Evaluate the development of body paragraphs.  Point out any paragraphs that seem too brief or underdeveloped and suggest concrete, specific ways of expanding any points in need of more elaboration.

4. Comment on any paragraphs that seem too "busy" because they address more than a single main point.  If any paragraph makes more than a single major point, where might the author do better to divide the paragraph into separate units?

5. Point out any places within any body paragraph where the author may be straying off-topic or bringing in matters not truly essential to the author's main points.

6. Evaluate the author's use of quotations to support major points throughout the paper.  Explain why ineffective quotes are ineffective, and suggest other quotes (or at least mention different articles) that might work better to illustrate the author's claims.  Also consider whether quotes are introduced effective (N3) and whether any quotations need more comment or explanation after they are given.

7. If the author addresses points that might be illustrated effectively with hypothetical or "real world" examples from beyond our readings, suggest "real world" examples that would improve any points in the essay.

8. Identify the weakest point in the body of the paper (weakest in content) and make concrete, specific suggestions for improvement. That is, identify which point is least convincing and explain why the point is not so successful as it might be.

9. Identify the second weakest point in the body of the paper (weakest in content) and here, too, make concrete, specific suggestions for improvement.

10. Evaluate the effectiveness of the conclusion.  Does it leave the reader impressed with the culmination of the writer's analysis, or does it just fizzle out?  Is the thesis clear in the conclusion? (The thesis should tie together the different main points from the body paragraphs.)  Is the paragraph adequately developed (i.e. somewhere near half a page in length)? Make specific suggestions for improvements in any areas needed in the conclusion.

11. On the draft itself, identify problems in grammar, diction, punctuation, etc., paying special attention to the golden rules, nuggets, "simple stuff," quotation and documentation items QD 1-5, and "word problems."