Peer response 3
You should know the drill with peer response by now: the key is that you be tactfully as critical as you can so that you will help your classmate improve his or her paper.

Your comments and suggestions are not limited to the items below, and of course, while you may make comments on the draft, the bulk of your response should be on separate paper.  Read the paper through once completely, then concentrate on these major areas:

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

  • ¶ development. Make specific suggestions for more effective setting up of the topic in thorough and engaging fashion.
  • Consider whether the ¶ flows smoothly into the intro question at the end of the ¶ and make specific suggestions for improving the flow into the question.
  • Suggest improvements in the intro question itself, considering particularly whether it addresses the assigned topic squarely and directly.
  • 2) Consider the overall focus of the essay: look for places where the paper might be straying from the stated central topic. 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.

    3) Evaluate the author's presentation of the opposing viewpoints and make suggestions for improving the opposing views. Offer suggestions for additional points on the other side of the argument the author may want to consider bringing in.

    4) Of the main points on the author's side of the argument, which is least strong? And why? Make specific suggestions in how to improve this weakest of the author's primary points.

    5) Make suggestions for making the stronger of the author's main points even stronger.

    6) Point out body ¶'s that seem too brief or undeveloped.  Make specific suggestions for improving underdeveloped ¶'s—that is, explain precisely how these ¶'s might be developed more effectively. 

    7) Point out any "busy" or overly long ¶'s that make more than one major point—indicate where the author should break these ¶'s into smaller units.

    8) Identify places within the body ¶'s where particular claims need more explanation, evidence, or illustration to make the points more effective.  Offer specific suggestions.

    9) 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.

    10) Suggest improvements in the author's use of quotations. Too many quotes?  Too few?  Suggest specific quotations from our readings that might help support the paper's primary assertions more effectively.  Suggest improvements in the introduction of quotes (Nugget 3).

    11) Indicate any words that strike you as awkward; indicate any words you think the author may be using incorrectly.

    12) Grammar and mechanics—especially "simple stuff," golden rules and nuggets, and quotes and documentation. 

    13) Point out any other significant weaknesses in the paper not covered in the items above.