Peer Response Questions
As you read your peers' papers, or any writing for that matter, mentally response
to these questions. Obviously, you can't answer all of them in writing, and
so make margin and end notes for those responses most relevant to the paper
and its author's concerns.
- Though this is not a question, always be on the look out for grammatical,
usage, and typographical/computer errors because the form is the window into
content: Dirty windows don't let a person see through them.
- Does the paper have a clear controlling idea/purpose/thesis?
- Not that it's necessary clearly stated, but by the end of the paper, do
you realize what the author is trying to accomplish?
- If the purpose is not explicit, is it too subtle?
- Has the author accomplished the goals she set up for herself?
- What is the nature of the paper's organization?
- Is that structure clear?
- Does the form help or hinder the content?
- How does the paper argue for itself?
- Does it advocated its writer and her ideas not only clearly and concisely
but also logically and analytically?
- Does the argument stray from its task? If so, to what effect?
- Does the paper present supporting details and evidence relevant to the
controlling purpose in a clear fashion?
- Does the paper have a discernible, distinct voice?
- Who's speaking to whom?
- Also, does that voice change?
- If it does, for what purpose does it change?
- Where can the paper by improved?
- Where is it most successful? least successful?
- What are it's strong points? weak points?
- How does the paper measure up to the standards, conventions, and expectations
of its rhetorical goal/purpose?
- If the paper is assigned, does it satisfy its prompt?
- If not, why?
- Does it respond to the prompt? creatively? straightforwardly? successfully?
How so?