Peer Review: Monstrous Cultures

One of the biggest challenges writers face is reading their own work as a
reader rather than as the writer. Select a draft that does not already have a
partner. Read that draft slowly and carefully to see whether they have made
their focus question (thesis) clear, described their subject sufficiently, offered
enough evidence to support their analysis, and provided their audience with
some insight about their subject. Respond to your peers original draft post
with an overall impression of their paper and attach this Word file with
answers to the questions below.

1.

Is the focus question behind their analysis clear? Is it a question

worth considering?

Not very clear in the beginning however, the second paragraph hints at the
focus question and the conclusion makes it more clear. (I could be wrong) A
comparison between the Ewe Adze and other religions that have morbid
entities.- It initially reigned as an intimidating figure of evil whose purpose
was to explain what could not be comprehended and to influence the Ewe
citizens to make morally sound decisions, and, to my enlightenment, was not
directly created as a metaphor of malaria, but the Adze proved to have
similar characteristics to how the Devil is used in other Christian societies.2.

How does the opening capture the audiences interest? Does it

indicate why this analysis matters? How else might they begin?

Good use of adjectives caught the interest of the audience and the details
behind kept it. Not really sure. Maybe go more in depth with focus question to
give the reader insight on what subject is being addressed in the piece.Deep within the culture and beliefs of South Africa lies a soul-possessing,
blood-sucking, mythical creature known as the Adze.3.

Is the subject described in enough detail for their intended

audience? Is there any other information you might need to follow their
analysis?

Yes. Yes, more information on the focus question.

4.

What insights have you gained from the analysis? Have they

stated their insights explicitly? How likely is it that readers will accept their
conclusions?

I've gained insight on the religious views of another country. Yes. More likely if
more information is added about the Adze and its implied symbolism for
malaria. The comparison of the Adze to Christianity's devil is very clear.
5.

Is the point of their analysis clear? Have they stated the point

explicitly in a thesisand if not, do they need to?

The point of their analysis became clear towards the conclusion of the piece.
Yes.
6.

What evidence do they provide to support their point? Is it

sufficient?

Detailed commentary on quotes used. Yes

7.

If theyve cited any sources, are they credible and convincing?

Have they integrated them smoothly into their textis it clear what they
are saying and where (and why) they are citing others? And have they
documented any sources theyve cited?
Yes they are credible and convincing, and yes. Yes it is very clear and yes
they have documented the sources cited.
8.

Have they addressed other perspectives? Do they need to

acknowledge possible counterarguments?

Yes other perspectives were addressed. A counterargument was
acknowledged but more information on that argument would help.
9.

How would you describe their tone, and does it accurately

convey their stance? Is it an appropriate tone for their audience and

purpose? If not, how could it be improved?
Their tone is informative and it accurately conveys their stance. Yes.
10.

How effectively is the analysis designed? Have they included

any images or other visual dataand if so, how do they contribute to the
analysis? If not, is there any information that might be easier to
understand if presented in a table or chart or accompanied by an image?

 Its pretty effective if the focus of the analysis is made more clear that would
help. No. Perhaps an image of the creature would help the audience
understand the correlation made between Adze of the Ewe people and the
devil of Christianity or another religion.
11.

How is the analysis organized? Is it easy to follow, with explicit

transitions from one point to the next? Are there headingsand if not,
would they help?
The analysis is easy to follow. I think headings would be a bit much but they
could also help.
12.

Consider styleis it appropriate for the audience and purpose?

Look at the choice of words and kinds of sentencesare they

appropriately formal (or informal)? Could the style be improved in any
way?
Yes. The style is primarily formal. Yes.
13.

How does the draft conclude? Is the conclusion forceful and

memorable? How else might the analysis conclude?

The conclusion isnt very forceful or memorable but it reestablishes the point
making it more clear. Concluding with a quote meaningful and scary maybe
might be nice. Though as the the time passed and the culture changed, the
Adze became a marketable item that is sold and taken more lightly.
-apparent thesis or controversial statement.
14.

Consider the title. Does it make clear what the analysis is about,

and will it make their intended audience interested in reading on?

Yes. It may catch the attention of an audience. Perhaps if the piece fit the
tone of the title a little more it would help. A Pain in the Adze -playful title
paper does not maintain this humor
For each of the points listed above, reviewers should provide concrete advice
about what the author should do to improve their draft. It can help if you
adopt the role of an editorsomeone who is working to improve the draft.
You can read more about these and other collaborative activities in
Everyones an Author: Chapter 4.