PEER REVIEW #1

For this peer review, please find someone in the row in front of your or behind you with whom to exchange papers. Write "read by [Your name]" at the top of the paper. Then read the paper, including the works cited, and mark errors, confusing sections, and effective sections. As you read, do the following:

1. In the introduction, underline the sentence that best describes the claim being made in the paper. Restate that claim in the margin beside the introduction. If there is no clear thesis, say so in order to warn the writer that he or she needs to come up with one.

2. Circle every transition phrase that connects paragraphs. Label it "effective," "weak," or "absent."

3. Label each body paragraph either "summary" or "claim" using these guidelines:

• A "summary" paragraph will start with a factual statement and simply summarize the plot of one of the documents from the syllabus without making a specific point.
• A "claim" paragraph will start with a claim that relates to the main thesis of the paper. References to a primary or secondary text support the central claim of the paragraph.

4. For each quote, do the following:

• Verify that each quote has a signal phrase, the actual quote, a citation, and discussion/analysis. If the quote has all four parts, put a check next to the citation. If it does not, put an X next to the citation and write what is missing from the quote.
• Next to each quote, indicate if the quote and analysis support the claim made in the paragraph. If it doesn't, say so.
• Flip to the works cited page and check to see if the citation for the quote lines up with a source listed alphabetically on the works cited page. Check off the works cited page entry if it matches. If there is no citation (or you can't locate it), write "not on works cited page" next to the quote's citation.

When you are done reading and marking up the text, write a note in which you comment on the following:

• How effectively does the paper set up a central thesis? State what it is and what parts of the paper support it well. Does the paper feel like it simply summarizes the plot of the text under discussion, or does it support a central claim?
• How effectively are primary texts used in the paper? These text would be the original writings on an issue (and not the supporting essays in the anthology). Is there enough evidence from the primary text?
• What revisions beyond grammar do you suggest to the writer?