Please answer each of the questions below as you respond to your peers’ rough drafts.  Be as specific and detailed as you can in your response: avoid vague and general feedback that doesn’t say much, such as “I liked your essay; it was good.” Or “I think your thesis needs more work.”  Say instead things like, “Your thesis is very broad right now; it covers X, Y, and Z.  If you refocus it just on X, then I think you could develop the paper further; for example, you could talk more about…., and about….”

1. State, in your own words, the writer’s thesis.  What is his or her specific argument about the rhetoric surrounding a particular issue?  In other words, what is his or her main claim, and what is the evidence he or she is using to support that claim?  If you have difficulty paraphrasing the thesis, then say so and explain why.  Also attempt to explain what might make it better.
2. Point out those places in the draft where you think the writer is providing convincing evidence for his or her thesis.  These should be passages of text that the writer is rhetorically analyzing—pulling apart and commenting on in order to show persuasion at work.
3. Point out those places in the draft where you think the writer needs to provide more evidence—claims that are not supported with examples or analysis.  Suggest possible ways to develop that evidence.
4. List those places in the draft that you think might not belong, that might be “off-focus” or “off-thesis.”  Explain why you think they might not belong and how they might be revised to belong if possible.  (Or perhaps they should simply be cut.)
5. In very general terms, do you think this paper should be re-organized?  (That is, are there any sections that need to be moved elsewhere, and if so, explain how and why.)
6. What do you think is working well in this draft? In what ways is the draft meeting the assignment?
7. Is there any way in which this draft is NOT meeting the assignment? How could that be resolved?
8. Other comments?

page last updated Jan 07