Peer review

Criteria for Critique

To receive full credit, answer all workshop questions in complete sentences, offering specific suggestions for improvement whenever possible.

The Summary

1.  Does the summary clearly introduce the writer, article title and publication?

2.  How effectively does the summary convey the central issue / problem that the author addresses and explain how he or she feels about the issue?

3.  How successfully does the summary help the reader understand the key points of the author’s argument?

4.  Are signal phrases (“Hong shows,” “the author suggests,” etc.) used to make an obvious distinction between information presented in the article and the writers ideas (see: https://department.monm.edu/english/mew/signal_phrases.htm (Links to an external site.))?

5.  Are descriptive verbs (Valdez indicates rather than Valdez is saying that) used to describe the actions of the text?

6.  Does the summary incorporate transitions (“Additionally,” “Moreover,” “As a result,” “Conversely,” “Next,” etc.) to help guide the reader through the progression of ideas (see: https://owl.purdue.edu/engagement/ged_preparation/part_1_lessons_1_4/transitions.html (Links to an external site.))?

7.  Is the summary free from grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors?

8.  How would you characterize the tone of the summary (see: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/english_as_a_second_language/esl_students/audience_considerations_for_esl_writers/tone_and_purpose.html (Links to an external site.))? Is it neutral and objective (see: ?

9.  Is the summary clearly organized? Does it mirror the sequence of content presented in the original article?

10. How closely does the Summary follow APA citation and documentation style (see: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/in_text_citations_the_basics.html (Links to an external site.))?

The Evaluation

11.  Is the claim clearly expressed? Is it “debatable” and stated as an assertion (see: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/index.html (Links to an external site.))?

12. Does the claim offer a meaningful contribution to the discussion at hand? How might the claim be improved?

13. Are convincing points (or “reasons”) presented immediately following the claim?

14. Does the writer provide at least two pieces of evidence to support each point? Would content from a second disciplinary source help to further develop points in the body of the paper?  If so, what type of disciplinary content might be most useful? (see: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/research_and_evidence.html (Links to an external site.))

15.  Is each example analyzed in sufficient depth? Does the writer clearly explain how each piece of evidence relates to the claim?

16.  Are transitions used appropriately? Where could the addition of a transitional device help to connect ideas and improve flow (see: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/transitions_and_transitional_devices/transitional_devices.html (Links to an external site.))?

17.  Is the paper written in a semi-formal – formal style (e.g., free from contractions, slang/conversational language, etc.) to appeal to fellow scholars?

18.  How effectively is APA (formatting and citation) used in the paper?

19.  Does the evaluation discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the article in sufficient detail?

20. What 3 CHANGES could significantly improve the readability and fluidity of the paper?

21. What 3 CHANGES could significantly improve the effectiveness of the writers argument?