peer review 131

Peer Review for HCP

PART 1

First, read through your peer’s draft to get a general sense of his or her topic. As you are reading, track any grammatical/language issues, as well as sections of the paper that are unclear. You may also make not of any areas you find particularly well written, or anything is you think is worthy of commentary.

PART 2 (long-form response)

Once you are finished reading and have a sense of the writer’s topic, address the following questions in at least 700 words. You may answer these in order or not. Certain questions may be more pressing than others depending on the paper. Concentrate on what you think is most urgent:

1. Write an outline of the paper’s argument using the Toulmin method.
2. Does the warrant clearly and effectively describe an event that illustrates the writer’s topic? Is the warrant effective in provoking your interest as a reader? Does the writer use appropriate evidence in this section? How might the writer improve this section?
3. Does the statement of topic clearly and effectively establish the premises of the debate? Do you have a clear sense of what’s at stake, who the key players are, what the key terms are, how it effects our culture, economy, government, the world at large? Does the writer use appropriate evidence in this section? How might the writer improve this section?
4. Does the historical context clearly and effectively answer the question: how did we get here? Does this section address key legal cases, technological innovations, events, cultural movements, etc.? As a reader, do you feel you have a sufficient understanding of how this problem came to be? What’s missing from your knowledge? What more would you like to know? Does the writer use appropriate evidence in this section? How might the writer improve this section?
5. Does the paper provide competing perspectives and interpretations of the problem that help you understand why this issue is so difficult to resolve? Are these perspectives well articulated? Are they in conversation with one another, or are they presented independently? Does the writer treat these perpsectoives fairly, or does he/she take clear sides? Does the writer use appropriate evidence in this section? How might the writer improve this section?
6. In general, is there sufficient use of evidence? Are the sources credible and diverse? Is there an effective use of multi-modal pieces of evidence? Is there anything that came up in your own research that the writer might want to look at?
7. Having read the paper, do you feel like you are equipped to intelligently discuss this topic? If not, what’s missing?
8. What is the most effective aspect of the paper and why? What is the least effective?
9. Based on your understanding of the prompt, has the writer successfully met the requirements of the HCP? Why or why not?
10. Does the style/tone of the writing fit the rhetorical situation? (the word around 800 is fine)