Unit Three Peer Review (Optional)

Unit Three Peer Review

(Optional)

You will receive five points of extra credit on the Unit Three Project for completing this review with a partner from your class. Reviews MUST be completed IN PERSON by Friday, April 28th; no extensions! You also need a full draft in order to participate in the review; please email this form and the commented draft.

Author’s Name:

Paper Title:

Reviewer’s Name:

 

Date, Time, and Location of Review Session:

 

 

  1. Identify the author’s OUTCOME:

 

A. Is this outcome a clear and specific action that might prove challenging for an audience? What (if anything) would make it more specific or more usefully challenging?

 

 

B. After reading the paper, why is this outcome so important (i.e. what makes it an ETHICAL decision)? Does the author use any language from our ethics readings to make his/her case? Where could the author use more of a focus on ethics?

 

 

  1. Identify the author’s AUDIENCE:

 

A. Can you tell from the paper who the author is addressing? Could the audience have an impact on the outcome, and will they be challenging to persuade?

 

B. Does it seem like the author understands the audience well and uses that information to support the argument, or is he/she writing to a generic listener? Identify a moment in the paper when the author is especially clear in addressing the audience.

 

 

  1. Identify the author’s GENRE AND VENUE:

A. Do the style of writing and the location of publication seem like the best way to reach the specific audience? Why or why not?

 

B. What are the conventions of this kind of writing? Does the author meet the conventions of the genre and venue?

 

 

 

  1. Imagine that you are a member of the author’s audience (if you aren’t already!). After reading this paper, what concerns do you still have about the outcome you’re expected to act upon? What, if anything, would more effectively convince you to change your thinking or actions? Some examples might include more evidence of a particular claim, a different approach, or a recognition of the audience’s concerns.

 

Paper Checklist

 

____ The author’s paper is between 1250-1750 words

____The author’s paper has a title

____The author’s paper uses MLA or APA heading formatting

____The author’s paper has page numbers

____ The author has at least five sources

____The author has a works cited page that cites all sources appropriately

____ The author’s paper has been checked for grammatical concerns (either through an editing read or through reading out loud)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *