Peer Review Workshop 9-8-09
Peer Reviewer: Author:
Is the thesis clear and concise? Revise verbs, cut extraneous detail, ensure that the thesis
makes
Comments: a clear, specific and narrow claim.
Is the writing interesting? Add examples, an anecdote, dialogue, or additional details. Cut
Comments: repetitious or boring details, and awkward phrasing.
Does the writing achieve the writer’s purpose? Add explanations, descriptive details, arguments, or narrative
details.
Comments:
Does the author provide enough illustration? Find additional relevant examples, or more fully analyze and
break down
Comments: those that you’ve already located.
Are there unrelated ideas or details that distract the reader? Cut irrelevant or distracting information.
Comments:
Does the author fully define and explain unfamiliar terms? Build an “argumentative thesaurus” for the terms you’ve
developed
Comments: so that you can easily refer to a glossary of terms. Ensure that
you’ve
used proper signaling language to define your terms, without
making
your argument awkward.
Does the argument have a clear beginning, middle, and end? Ensure that your argument is arranged in a way that makes its
meaning
Comments: explicit to the reader. Review the process you use to make your
argument, and consider revising by reordering the path of your
argument.
Are logical connections between sentences and paragraphs Review your transition sentences, ensure that paragraphs obey
the
clear? Comments: 3-Ied monster (Introduce, Illustrate, Interpret). Check for logical
errors.
Is the meaning clear? Revise awkward sentences, by completely rehashing your idea.
Use
Comments: clear wording—avoid phrasing that is unwieldy.
Does
the writing contain clichés or overworked phrases? Cut or replace
with specific details and fresh comparisons.
Comments:
Is the language appropriate for the audience and purpose? Ensure that your phrasing is appropriate for formal academic
discourse.
Comments: