Peer Review Workshop #2: Oct. 12^th

For the writer: What are you concerned about? What would you like your peer to pay attention to?

1. Does the writer introduce the main author and her chapter? How do they address the author’s main argument? Do they lead the reader into the subject of their paper? How so?

2. How does the writer state what they intend to do and give the reader an overview of their structure (project and/or road map?) Do they use metadiscourse (I will or this paper will...)? How could it be improved? Indicate the sentence(s) that do this in their introduction.

3. Does the writer clearly introduce three outside texts? How have they put them in conversation with boyd? Think of the verbs in the prompt, and be specific. Indicate all three below.

4. Which specific claims does the writer highlight from boyd’s chapter? (These may be in multiple paragraphs throughout the paper.) Have they used quotes from the text to demonstrate these claims? Paraphrase them below.

5. How well does the writer integrate the outside sources? Do they accurately convey the sources through demonstrative quotes? Has boyd remained the anchor text and focus throughout the paper?

6. How does the writer conclude the paper? Do they cohesively reflect upon the entire paper? Do they “tie up loose ends”? Do they explore the “so what” question?

7. Overall, do you feel like the writer constructed a cohesive paper? Is it easy to follow? If you were unfamiliar with the text, could you still understand their paper? Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for improvement?

Revision Plan: For the Writer

Create a revision plan for your next draft, due Wednesday Oct. 14^th. After reading your peers notes and rereading your own paper, how do you feel you can improve for your next draft? List three ways below.

1)

2)

3)