PAPER #2: SECOND PEER REVIEW

1. What is the author's main claim about the book or movie? In other words, what is the author trying to prove is his or her interpretation of the book or film? Is it unclear? If so, how could he or she refine the thesis?

2. How effectively is one of the monster theories used? Point to a strong use of it and say why it works well. Point to a weak use of it and suggest a change that could help improve the paper. Are there points where the claim isn't clear?

3. If you were to disagree with a point or claim in the paper, how would you argue against it? Politely indicate what you would say and then suggest how the author might preemptively address that argument to defuse it before it becomes a problem.

4. Do all the quotes have a signal phrase, the actual quotation, a citation after the quotation but before the next natural piece of punctuation, and then discussion? Can you easily link the citations to a works cited entry? What needs work?

5. Overall, what's the best part of the paper? What should the author do beyond fixing mechanics and finishing the paper to improve it?