Peer Response 2

Your comments and suggestions are not restricted to the numbered items below: if other ideas for improving the paper occur to you, share them.  Feel free to mark on the draft, but write your response to the questions below on separate paper.  Give your response to the paper's author so that he or she can review your suggestions and turn in your response with his or her paper.  And in a tactful way, be mean!  Be critical!

1. After reading it through a first time, state your initial impression of the paper.

2. Consider whether the introduction is neutral throughout  Point out specific sentences in the intro that might give away the author's viewpoint. Also consider whether the introduction is adequately developed. If the paragraph seems at all brief or hasty—anything less than half a page—suggest specific, concrete ways of setting up the topic more effectively or in greater depth.  (Avoid saying simply "expand": suggest how the paragraph might be expanded).

3. Evaluate the central question raised at the end of the introduction.  Does it a) define an issue that has two or more different "sides"? and b) address the assigned topic squarely?  In these respects and in any others, suggest how the intro question might be sharpened or improved.

4. Underline the topic sentence of each body ¶ on the draft.  If there is no obvious topic sentence in any body ¶, suggest one.  Make suggestions for improving existing topic sentences—note that each topic sentence should answer the intro question squarely and directly. Also underline and evaluate the thesis statement, which should appear in the conclusion.

5. Evaluate the effectiveness of the "opposing views."  Consider whether the paper presents opposition viewpoint(s) fairly and fully, and make suggestions for improving the opposing views.  Suggest additional opposing points. (Note that the opposing views are views the author disagrees with in the end—the other side of the argument.)

6. Evaluate the author's refutation of the opposing views. That is, does the author explain why the opposing views are not the best answer(s) to the intro question?  Suggest specific improvements in refutation.

7. If the paper addresses the men's and women's stereotypes option (option 3), evaluate the author's structuring of main points in body ¶'s: if the author discusses more than a single stereotype in any body ¶, consider whether the tactic is effective. If you think the author would do well to reorganize any body ¶'s, say so and explain why.  Note that this topic requires at least two body ¶'s for men and two for women.  Also consider whether the author explains the suffering thoroughly enough in each body ¶.

8. Identify the weakest point in the body of the paper (not the intro or conclusion) and make concrete, specific suggestions for improvement.

9. Identify the second weakest point in the body of the paper (not the intro or conclusion), and here, too, make concrete, specific suggestions for improvement.

10. Make specific suggestions for improving underdeveloped paragraphs: don't just say "expand" or "elaborate" make precise suggestions.  Also point out "busy" or overly long paragraphs that make more than one major point—indicate where the author should break these paragraphs into smaller units.

11. Identify places where the paper needs more evidence or illustration to make points more effective and offer specific suggestions.

12. Evaluate the effectiveness of the conclusion. If the conclusion is less than roughly half a page in length, suggest specific ways of expanding the paragraph: use the expression "for example," and then give actual suggestions.

13. Suggest improvements in the author's use of quotations. Too many quotes?  Too few?  Suggest specific passages from the articles in question or from other readings that the author might quote to illustrate better the paper's primary assertions.  Suggest improvements in the introduction of quotes (Nugget 3).

14. Sum up: Is the paper likely to convince the opposition to agree with the author?  Explain.

15. Grammar and mechanics—especially "simple stuff," golden rules and nuggets, quotes and documentation, and Word Problems.