Peer Review: Secondary Source Analysis Paper – The Writing Intensive Program

Credits

Developed by Maggie Neel, history
Based on initial assignment created by Jennifer Palmer, history

To think about editing as an aspect of the writing process.
To help each other clarify writing and articulate ideas.
To receive suggestions and advice on how to edit your paper to improve it for the final draft.

Read the paper once through without stopping to write anything down.
Read a second time slowly, taking notes on scratch paper.
Organize your thoughts on the scratch paper.
Write your comments neatly in the appropriate sections of the peer review comment sheet.
Any additional comments should go at the end of the comment sheet. Specifically, write down any questions you had after reading the paper.

Don’t write on the paper itself. If you are referring to a very specific word or sentence in the paper and you want your peer to be able to find the part you are referring to, you can put a small mark next to that part on the paper and then mention this on the comment sheet (for example, “see star on page 2…”).
Think before you respond. The idea that you don’t understand may be explained perfectly in the next paragraph, so don’t let your gut reaction be what you write on the comment sheet.
Be considerate. It is hard for all of us to take criticism and writing is a personal matter. So, when writing your comments, try to use first person because these comments are your own opinion. So, instead of saying “The third page makes no sense!” put “I found the idea on the third page confusing. Were you trying to say that…?”
Be honest and specific. You don’t want to offend your peer, but you do want to give them comments that will help. Each comment should include your own suggestion for how to improve the paper. So, instead of just saying “You need more evidence in the paragraph about Hector” put “I thought that the section about Hector would be stronger with more evidence. You could look at Book 6 where…”

Peer comments should give you feedback on the quality and coherence of your ideas. (Are your arguments clear and logical?Did you communicate what you had hoped to communicate?)

Paper belongs to ___________________, Peer reviewed by ______________________

Question	Reviewer Response	Author’s Notes: Is what my peer identified what I wanted to communicate to my readers? How might I clarify my argument and/or apply my peer feedback?
Thesis: What is the thesis statement?
Thesis: Is it specific? Does it address the HOW and WHY? Does it introduce the paper’s overarching argument? How might the thesis statement be improved to be clearer to the reader?
Evidence: Is the evidence necessary and sufficient to support the ideas in the paper? Was there any evidence that seemed unnecessary because it didn’t relate to the main idea of the paragraph that it was in, or to the thesis statement?
Evidence: What additional evidence would also support the argument? In what paragraphs?
Explain: Did the paper clearly explain how each piece of evidence helped prove the thesis? If not, where might explanation help?
Organization: What was the main idea of each paragraph?
Organization: Were the main ideas specific and focused, or vague? Was it hard to see the main idea of any of the paragraphs? Do any lack a clear subclaim/topic sentence that introduces the main idea?
Organization: Does every paragraph and its subclaim help support the thesis statement? If not, what paragraphs wander/need closer connection to the thesis?
Organization: What order were the ideas in? Did you understand why the ideas were in that order? Can you think of another order for the main ideas?
Comments: Additional comments or suggestions

Have Thesis? Yes / No

Have subclaims for each paragraph? Yes / No

Have evidence for each claim? Yes / No

Explain the article’s argument? Yes / No

Explain the historiography? Yes / No

Explain the article’s evidence? Yes / No

Evaluate the strength of the article’s evidence? Yes / No

Evaluate the strength of the aticle as a whole? Yes / No