Peer Reviewing

Peer review allows you both to become a more critical reader of other work and to hear
advice from your classmates about how your paper might be more successful. Please
consider what kind of feedback you would like to receive and offer the same quality of
feedback to your fellow writers.
Writers Guide to Peer Reviewing

Overall guidelines
o Your readers goal is to observe what the piece of writing, in its ideal
incarnation, is trying to accomplish. Try asking your readers these three
questions: What do you see this piece as being about? What works in helping
it succeed in this mission (i.e. what should stay)? What are the challenges it still
faces (i.e. what could change)? By avoiding open-ended questions such as
What do you think? or Is it any good? a writer and a reader can have a
useful conversation about improving a piece of writing. You as the writer
should always host the conversation so you dont end up feeling assaulted
by well-meant but irrelevant advice. Use this model 1) What is there? 2) What
works? 3) What challenges remain? to address specific parts of the essay:
structure, introduction, style, evidence, language, conclusion, claims.

Readers Guide

General reaction
o Read the essay quickly to understand your peers ideas.
o On a separate sheet of paper, write in your own words your impression of
what the essays central point is.
o On the separate sheet of paper write a few sentences addressing your first
impressions. Is it well organized? Has it done what it set out to do in the
thesis?

A closer look
o Read the essay more slowly, putting checks next to the more effective parts
of it and question marks by the parts that are unclear. Or use the comment
function on Microsoft Word.
o Mark one sentence in the essay that best conveys its overall thesis.
o Using the comment function, explain how well the essay supports the central
purpose as explained in this sentence. Mention which parts of the paper
detract from this purpose and explain why.

In class
o During discussion of the essay in class, share your ideas. Bounce ideas off
each other. Help each other with your own expertise.

Peer Review Questions

Reviewer Name: _________________________________________
Writer under Review: _____________________________________
The point of peer reviews is to work together to locate what these papers are working to say
and then give informed, respectful suggestions to help the writer say it more clearly. Use
these questions to help guide discussion, but please be brief in answering them. The main
purpose of your peer discussion is to have a discussion.
1.) What is the thesis claim or question, and what is at stake (how does it matter in the real
world)? Is this thesis claim arguable (as in, somebody could disagree with it)?

2.) Does the introductory paragraph address all four major thesis points: Hook, Background,
Who Cares, and the thesis claim/question itself?

3.) How is the paper organized in terms of its supporting paragraphs? What are the logical
links between the paragraphs? Do they seem organized by chronology? Cause and effect?
Some other guiding principle? Where does the structure feel coherent, and where random?

4.) In the supporting paragraphs, what are the topic sentences (i.e. supporting claims)? Do
the paragraphs feel focused or do they wander? Where does the support of the topic
sentences feel complete and fair? Where incomplete or unfair? Does the writer look at
underlying questions and symbolisms in the story, rather than just offering a summary?

5.) What sorts of evidence (quotes, examples, etc) are used in the supporting paragraphs?
Does this textual evidence seem relevant? Are there any obvious holes or counterarguments?

6.) When the writer analyzes the language of the source(s), are quotes and summary woven
cleanly into the writers prose, or just plopped into the paper? Find an example of a good
quote sandwich that involves set-up of quote, the quote itself, and then interpretation of
the words or ideas used? Where is the interpretation clear (i.e. it contributes to the thesis),
and where does it feel incomplete or irrelevant?

7.) What does the conclusion do? Does it bring up new questions or reflect in a different
light why the papers claim matters? Does it circle back to the beginning in any way?

8.) How would you characterize the writers voice? Does it sound trustworthy, intelligent,
interesting? Does the writers voice come through consistently in the writing? Is the paper
consistently written in present tense (which is standard for academic papers)?

9.) Does the paper have a title that is NOT the title of the story being analyzed? Does it also
have a works cited page that has been checked on the Purdue OWL to make sure it is citing
the source correctly?

10.) Overall, what are the greatest strengths of this paper? Which parts could be improved?