Rhetoric & Composition I: Autumn Quarter 2013 Rotating Header Image

Peer Review Ideas: notes from Thursday

  • It turns out that not everyone has read the assignment. Do you get the sense that the writer whose work you are reviewing has read the assignment and knows what a Rhetorical Analysis is? What a Rhetorical Analysis is supposed to do?
  • Combination of MSWord mark-up tools and a few paragraphs in letter form on global issues based on St. Martin’s 1.4b (page 75) — see especially “Responding to early-stage drafts” and “Reviews of Emily Lesk’s draft”
  • Does the writer discuss tone? 
  • Does the writer discuss emotional, logical, and credible forms of rhetorical appeals? (pathos, logos, ethos)? Also see in your St. Martin’s Guide, 2.8d.: “Reading emotional, ethical, and logical appeals”
  • OED?
  • Coherent?
  • Inspires curiosity?
  • Does the writer do a good job with word-level analysis? For example, recall the “Two-State Illusion” writer’s use of third-person pronouns they, them, which can be distancing and “othering,” rhetorically speaking, whereas Kristof often depends on we, us, first-person pronouns that establish a different kind of relationship with readers: we, us
  • Arrangement/organization: does it make sense? What should come first? What should come next? What should come after that?
  • Should the writer visit the Writing Center?

Advice for reviewers: please take the time to review St. Martin’s 1.4b (pages 75-87). You’ll see excellent and relevant examples of peer reviews there.