Unit 3 First Draft Peer Review

  1. How well do the opening sentences draw you in and make you want to read more?
  2. From the introductory paragraph, how clear is it what the subject matter of the essay is?
  3. How clear is the position being taken (the thesis)? Does it state whether or not personal intervention by the individual is a moral obligation?
  4. Overall attention to assignment purpose: is the draft making a debatable claim (in other words, taking a position that others could disagree with and try to argue against), and supporting that main claim with reasons and evidence throughout? Point out if the writer is not attending to the required purpose, but is doing something else, like just giving information, or just reviewing what sources have said.
  5. Remember your audience is not just people in our class. How much does the writer keep the reader who is NOT from our class in mind? (We know about opioids, but what do other people know? What basic background information do they need?) Does the writer provide necessary background information for these readers? Is there any unnecessary information given that could be cut? Is this information provided early enough so that the readers won’t be confused or lost in misunderstanding? Point out where more or less information is required.
  6. Each body paragraph should be one answer to the question “why?” posed after the thesis—should explain one major reason why the proposed thesis is morally right—why it is or isn’t a moral obligation to do something about the opioid crisis.How strong a reason is each one given? Do you agree that the reason would be a valid one? Is a topic sentence stating this reason provided at the beginning of each paragraph? Is the reason based on ethics (well-founded standards of right and wrong)? For example, a reason why what’s being proposed is fair for everyone, and/or respects people’s rights, and/or maximizes good and minimizes harm for all concerned, etc. Point out anywhere the writer is not arguing the moral rightness or wrongness, but is focused merely on what’s most cost efficient, or most expedient, or easiest to accomplish, etc.
  7. How convincing is the support for each reason? Apply the STAR principle: Is more support needed? Is the evidence given typical/representative? Is it accurate, as far as you know, or does the writer get anything wrong? Is it all relevant to the point being made? Is there a variety of types of support, or does the writer depend too much on one kind of support (too much pathos appeal and not enough evidence, or over-reliance on just one type of evidence and/or on one source?) Where? Point out where the evidence might be thin and unconvincing.
  8. Are you confused by anything? Is there anything that’s hard to follow or understand? Point out where, if so.
  9. Every time the writer uses material from a source, is it clear what the source is? (is it introduced and cited) Is a works cited of all sources used provided at the end? Is every piece of borrowed material “sandwiched?” (introduced, given [with appropriate parenthetical citation, if a specific passage like a quote or paraphrase], then followed up on with explanation/ context / response to the borrowed material)

Looking ahead to evaluation of the final draft.

The following criteria will be used to grade the essay, so keep them in mind when you’re writing, and when you’re peer reviewing:

  • Following directions, submitting correctly and on time.
  • Attention to purpose (moral argumentation).
  • Critical thinking/ logic shown in putting together an argument; and full development of your ideas.
  • Attention to the needs of the audience for information, clarity/organization, and engagement.
  • Ethical and proper use and attribution of sources.
  • Format/layout/grammar, mechanics, spelling.