Below are some common questions to consider when reviewing a peer's paper as well as when reviewing feedback from peers:

Focus

  • In what ways have you fulfilled the assignment requirements in terms of purpose, length, audience, required/appropriate sources, appropriate persona/tone, and rhetorical stance?
  • What makes your thesis arguable, controversial, and/or insightful?
  • How does your thesis reflect your paper's purpose?
  • How have you advanced your thesis through convincing and compelling ideas?
  • How does each paragraph—along with all the sentences it contains—support your main idea?

Evidence

  • How credible are your sources?
  • How can you demonstrate the source's credibility to the reader?
  • In what ways can you provide supporting details to best back up your claims (i.e., anecdotal evidence and hypothetical examples)?
  • How are your sources or details relevant to your thesis and purpose?
  • Can the reader distinguish between your ideas and those of your sources?
  • How can you better integrate your sources and details into your argument instead of letting them speak for you?
  • How much of the quote is vital to make your point?
  • What might be a more appropriate approach for this sourced material (i.e., summary, paraphrase, quotation)?
  • Where is the evidence to back up this assertion?

Organization

  • In what ways does your opening engage your reader?
  • How do your topic sentences relate to your thesis?
  • How do your topic sentences indicate the purpose of each paragraph, and within each paragraph, how do all of your ideas pertain to the topic of the paragraph?
  • Where do you use appropriate transitional language to connect ideas between sentences?
  • In what ways do you preview or signal to your reader? In other words, how might you give your reader a heads-up before you shift ideas ("segue") as well as a nod toward the ideas that have come before?
  • How does your conclusionanswer the "so what" question?
    • In what manner have you reiterated your ideas?
    • In what way have you provided a call to action and/or a contextualization?
    • With what have you left your reader to think about at the end of your paper?
  • In what ways does your paper organization reflect the classical argumentation style?
  • In what ways does your paper organization reflect the Rogerian argumentation style?
  • How can these ideas be arranged in a more logical order?
  • How have you distinguished between main ideas and details?
  • In what ways might you improve the flow or cohesiveness of your paper?

Style

  • How might you address the grammatical issue(s) (subject/verb agreement issues, pronoun reference problems, run-ons/fused sentences/comma splices, fragments, dangling or misplaced modifiers) that occur(s) throughout your essay?
  • Can you identify places in your text where either punctuation is missing or where the purpose of this punctuation is unclear? How might you correct these punctuation issues?
  • What is the appropriate point of view for this text based on your audience and purpose?
  • You tend to use less explicit descriptions (such as clichés, qualifiers, wordy constructions, overuse of prepositional phrases, vague constructions). How might your discussion be more precise and engaging?
  • How might you revise this sentence to make it clearer, more active, more convincing, and more connected to other sentences or ideas?
  • Are there places in your paper where the word choice is inappropriate (conversational, archaic, stilted, sexist, racist, etc.) for your audience? What might be more appropriate?
  • How might you include more sentence variety in your paper?
  • How might you engage your reader by incorporating more figurative language (anecdote, narrative, simile, metaphor, dialogue, personification)? How might you offer more valid comparisons using these techniques?

Format

  • How might you make your paper formatting more compliant with the accepted documentation style (i.e., MLA guidelines)?
  • How might you format your in-text citations so that they're more compliant with the accepted documentation style?
  • How might you format your annotations so that they're more compliant with the accepted documentation style?
  • How might you format your works cited page so that it's more compliant with the accepted documentation style?
  • How might you format your block quote so that it's more compliant with the accepted documentation style?
  • How might you format the punctuation surrounding your quote so that it's more compliant with the accepted documentation style?
  • How might you more effectively integrate multimedia components into your assignment so as to improve your document design?