Research Paper Critique (For peer or self evaluation)

For each of the questions below, the first answer should be “yes” or “no”; however, you must provide explanations for why and how these are the answers. Draw your explanations usingspecific elements of the paper to support your evaluation.

Is there an engaging introduction that arouses interest? What is it? (case study, quotation, astounding statistic, anecdote or hypothetical scenario, etc.) Is it effective?

Does the thesis clearly indicate where the paper is going? (persuasive or informative?) Write the thesis statement below.

Is there a smooth flow between intro and thesis statement? If not, how could it be improved?

Do the topic sentences of each section tie directly to the thesis statement? Are there smooth transitions to get from one topic to the next? (transitional topic sentences?)

Is each body point further subdivided into at least two categories (A’s and B’s from outline)? Can they be easily distinguished? Are there transitions inside each paragraph to get from one point to the next?

Are there enough specific examples from notes to support each subdivision? Which points seem weak and could use more evidence?***

Are all of these specific examples explained and/or interpreted by the writer? Where do you see points that need more explanation? (REMEMBER: Examples  Explanation  Elaboration)

Has the writer rounded off each body point before moving on to the next one? Give an example.

Has the writer reemphasized the thesis statement using new language in the conclusion?

Has the writer left the reader with something profound to consider at the conclusion of the paper? What is it?

Has the writer used parenthetical documentation throughout the paper? Any information that should be documented but is not? Has the author varied the form of documentation used? Has s/he interwoven different types of sources used (not all internet followed by all periodicals, for example)

Is a proper outline included following the proper form (first words capitalized, sentences only for Roman numerals, etc.)?

Is a works cited page included following the proper form (sources listed alphabetically based on correctly written bibliography cards following MLA format)?

What are the positive aspects of this paper? What did you learn from reading it? Was it convincing? What parts are especially strong? Did the writer make it interesting? What is the best thing about this paper?

What constructive criticism would you give the writer? How can s/he make this paper even better? Which sections or particular points could use more development? Are any parts unclear?

Finally, critique for sentence correctness, variety, conciseness, as well as grammatical correctness, spelling, etc. Can you suggest any improvements in revision for this writer?