12/5/23, 9:02 AM PeerMark Print View

FIRST LAST'S PEERMARK REVIEW OF ANONYMOUS'S PAPER

ASSIGNED QUESTIONS

1. Does the author present a thesis statement about the rhetorical effectiveness of a peer-reviewed article? Is this thesis clear and direct? What is it? Mark it in the
text. What suggestions do you have for the writer in order to strengthen the thesis? Has the author chosen one (and only one) peer-reviewed article to analyze?
The author does us the thesis statement, but I believe that they should add a little more to it.

2. Does the essay include a controlling idea that is not obvious to everyone? In other words, does it reveal something not everyone would know about how and why
this peer-reviewed article is used? Where can the author develop more of an analysis or more fully develop the ideas?

the controlling idea is there and its understandable, but they only need to add a little more info.

3. Does the author use elements from the article to support the thesis made about it? What are they? Mark them in the text. Are they used as good evidence? Indicate
why or why not in the text. What kind of evidence would help the writer demonstrate his/her point?

The author does use elements from the article, for example, the second paragraph.

4. Does the essay maintain a cohesive focus around the thesis? Does the author use solid transitions to guide his/her ideas? Determine, as a reader, how you want to
be presented with the information. Does the organization work for you? Indicate suggestions for organization and transitions. Also, mark any tangents that you find
in the essay.

the author does show what they are trying to say, but maybe they should be adding a little more info in the introduction.

5. Where could the author use more detail to further illustrate his/her claim? Indicate these places in the text.

The author should add more info in the introduction and some on the second paragraph as well.

6. Are the introduction and conclusion focused on the main point of the essay? Does the conclusion answer the three questions? (1. Did I do what I said I would do? 2.
Why is this important? 3. What do I want my audience to do with this information?)

The introduction does focus on the main point of the essay. It's easy to understand what the author is trying to say.

7. Indicate in the text the author’s strengths and weaknesses.

It would be in the introduction because it is great and all, but I think they should add more info.

8. What three revision suggestions do you have for the writer?

Just adding a little more in the introduction, as for the second paragraph, it fine just the way it is.

9. Indicate in the text where the author needs more details.

The introduction.

10. Indicate in the text where the author needs more evidence.

A little for the second paragraph.

11. Indicate in the text three places where the author deserves praise for this essay.

It's the summary, the second paragraph.

COMMENTS LIST
No comments added

SUBMITTED FILE INFO

file name Rhetorical_analysis_draft.docx

file size 7.61K

https://api.turnitin.com/app/peermark/static/reviewee.asp?review_id=689652506&session-id=f928cce81be442fa9bf8eb03772ef328&lang=en_us 4/6
12/5/23, 9:02 AM PeerMark Print View

"RHETORICAL ANALYSIS DRAFT.DOCX" BY ANONYMOUS

https://api.turnitin.com/app/peermark/static/reviewee.asp?review_id=689652506&session-id=f928cce81be442fa9bf8eb03772ef328&lang=en_us 5/6
12/5/23, 9:02 AM PeerMark Print View

https://api.turnitin.com/app/peermark/static/reviewee.asp?review_id=689652506&session-id=f928cce81be442fa9bf8eb03772ef328&lang=en_us 6/6