Research PAPER Peer Edit

Peer Editor(s): Gabriella Gonzalez

Writer’s Name(s): Alexandra‌‌Niblo‌
Focus and Details: The topic and stance of the 30, there were many sources used that
paper are clear. The content is persuasive and strengthened her point. She stays on the
adequately supported with examples and details. The
opposition is addressed and refuted. topic.
(30)
Organization: The introduction is attention- 15, the introduction and hook were good
getting, and provides a well-written, engaging thesis. caught attention, but I felt like the
Information is relevant and presented in a logical
order. The conclusion is strong. conclusion could have connected to the
(20) thesis more.
Voice: The author’s purpose of writing is clear, 15
and there is strong evidence of attention to audience.
The author’s extensive knowledge and/or experience
with the topic is/are evident and tone is persuasive
(15)
but not overbearing.
Word Choice and Sentence Structure: The 10, she could have used more vivid
author uses vivid words and phrases. The choice and imagery to convey more feeling.
placement of words seems accurate, natural, and
not forced. The sentences are varied in accordance
with the content. (15)
Grammar, Usage, & Mechanics: Clear, 5, a few grammatical errors, mostly
concise, and well written and edited with no errors, comma placement and spelling issues.
including correct use of quotations. (10)
MLA Format: Paper follows correct MLA format, 10
including a cover page and parenthetical citations. All
content stays on topic. (10)
How long is the rough draft? 4 pages and a works cited page
Is the paper convincing? Why?
Yes, there are a lot of good points made but I felt like it was missing an
explanation. A point was made and it was followed by a source, but I don't feel like
it was explained properly.

What did you learn that you did not already know?
I learned about how many animals actually die in zoos, including animals from our
own local zoo.

Is the opposition addressed and refuted? yes

What is the strongest part?
In the opposition, the authors give one example and one source of zoos actually
helping animals, but there are many more sources throughout the paper that refute
that.

Are there appropriate transitions? yes

What could be done to improve this work?
Just to fix some grammatical errors, tie all the sources and their points back to the thesis and
explain them, and work on the conclusion. I feel like more can be done to really make a point
and it kind of feels like you are telling me this information but not explaining. Also, try and use
some more vivid imagery to make a point as well.