WA 2 – Peer Review for WA 2 [remote]

Reviewee [writer]: Micheal Reviewer [you]: Huda

As you read the paper,

 Highlight the thesis statement. This sentence (or sentences) should present your argument about how and way
you think Ehrenreich is right or wrong.
 Highlight or underline the following phrases: you, your, we, us, our, etc. (that present point of view concerns).

Please keep in mind:

No responses to a question on this peer review sheet should be short, vague, or rushed. This is a critical thinking
assignment for you, and I need to be able to see that you are thinking critically about your peer’s essay and applying
what you have learned thus far from our discussions of the following: the writing process, traditional essay structure,
Chapters 1-8 of the text, Anne Lamott’s “Shitty First Drafts,” Donald Murray’s two articles on revision, and the ENC 1101
Essay Rubric. To receive full credit for the assignment, I will need you to answer every question on the sheet thoughtfully
and specifically, highlight what was instructed above ^ , and submit the peer review sheet to the correct Canvas
Discussion Board by the assigned deadline.

Introduction – Hook, Context, and Thesis

Hook – Does the introduction begin with an engaging opening that grabs the reader’s attention? If you had to rate the
hook, from 1 at very boring to 10 at very engaging, how would you rate the hook? If present, how does the hook
succeed? How does the hook fail?

[from a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate Michael’s hook a five. He doesn’t not really begin with a hook instead it is straight to
the point. I feel as if he could have included a statistic or may be a question or a direct quote then an explanation.
However, he does introduce the topic very clearly and concisely.]

Context is everything – The introduction of the paper should summarize Ehrenreich’s main points from her article as well
as either Lilienfeld or Van Nuy’s main points. In order to do this successfully, the paper writer must provide sufficient
and objective context for the reader. It should answer context with who, what, where, when, why, and how. Context
includes clearly explaining the problem or issues as well as proving any background information needed for a reader to
understand the author’s argument. Is objective context provided? Explain and provide suggestions for development and
improvement of the context.

[Michael has included a lot of context. He “Barbara his article a multitude of times, he also includes statistics and
quotations from Sean anchors ted talk while also including a personal experience. I believe that this adds to his writing
making it more personable and easier to read.]

Argument – What is the peer’s argument (thesis)? Please copy and paste it below. Does the peer agree or disagree or a
mixture of both with Ehrenreich’s argument? What reason [the why] is provided for disagreeing or agreeing? Can you
tell how the peer will agree or disagree? Explain and provide suggestions for development and improvement of the
thesis. If there is no clear argument, make some suggestions to help the peer clarify their point of view.

[My peer directly disagrees with Barbara’s stance on optimism. He says, “I disagree with Barbara Ehrenreich’s article
because I feel as though she misrepresents optimism by conflicting it with foolish decisions.” I believe he does a great
job using words that clearly presents his disagreement, however, I recommend that he uses different synonyms of
disagree. ]
Body Paragraphs – Explaining Your Reasons and Evidence

Topic sentences – does each paragraph begin with a clear topic sentence that refers back to a specific point from the
thesis? Has the writer confused evidence with a topic sentence, meaning that a quotation or paraphrase or some other
form of evidence was offered as the first sentence of the paragraph rather than an argumentative first sentence?

[I believe some paragraphs do begin with a clear topic sentence that refer back to a specific point in his thesis. ]

Focus – Review each body paragraph for unity and on-topic-ness – does the evidence match the main point of that
paragraph (which should be clearly stated in the topic sentence)? Are there any paragraphs that get off track with
irrelevant information? Make a note of the paragraph number and provide a brief explanation below.

[I believe that he stays focused on the topics through each and every paragraph including his introduction and
conclusion I feel he could’ve used a better topic sentences, however, it did get the point across.]

Evidence – does the writer provide sufficient evidence to support the thesis? Can you find a variety of evidence? Count
each incidence of evidence, including examples, quotations, paraphrases, logical reasoning, and common knowledge,
you can find in each body paragraph. For each paragraph below, indicate the number of uses of evidence. So, for
example, if you find two quotations, a paraphrase, and an example in body paragraph 1, you would write the number 4
next to B1. Indicate where you see faulty or inadequate interpretations/analysis of these sources, meaning a weak
application or framing of IQEA (introduce, quote, explain, and analyze). Indicate where further evidence is needed to
support the argument and/or further explanation of the quotes is needed to make connections to the peer’s argument.
Use paragraph numbers to provide specific response.

B1 = 2

B2 =2

B3 =2

[I believe he does use sufficient evidence in each paragraph. In each paragraph, there is about 2 to 3 quotations and
paraphrases of Barbara and Shawn anchor has said in their optimism stances.]

Integrating Evidence - Do clear signal phrases prepare readers for secondary sources (ex: According to John Smith . . .)?
Are quotes blended well with the author’s own language? Are summaries and paraphrases free of plagiarized material
and properly documented (you will need to track down the quotes to double check)? Are quotation marks and in-text
citations used correctly? Indicate where or if you see faulty or inadequate interpretations/analysis of the integrated
evidence, meaning a weak application or framing of IQEA (introduce, quote, explain, and analyze) as outlined in Chapter
3 of your text.

[Before every quotation and after every paraphrase there is sufficient use of integrating evidence. He integrates the
quotes and paraphrases into his essay nicely and I can clearly see when it’s his point of view versus the authors point of
view he is citing.]

Counterargument – Does the essay include a counterargument? Where is/are the counterargument(s)? How fairly and
objectively is the counterargument presented? How convincingly and thoroughly is the counterargument answered and
overcome? Are there any counterarguments you can think of that are not explored and overcome?
[The essay does include a counter argument and I believe it is when he quotes Barbara and then he rebuttals her claims
to fit his own narrative and essay structure.]

Control of voice – Are clear voice markers used to show where the author’s voice begins and ends and where the peer’s
voice begins and ends? Are templates used to support the use of and control of voice? Please include below a sampling
of some voice markers you find in any of the body paragraphs.

[I believe Michael has properly separated his point of view from the authors I can clearly see where his voice ends and
where the authors voice begins.]

Organization/Transitions – Has the writer used clear organizational cues (transitions, signal phrases, repetition of key
ideas, etc.) to logically develop their paper? Does one idea lead logically to the next? Or is the writer bouncing from idea
to idea without connecting the dots and emphasizing the thesis? Are there transitions between paragraphs as well as
between sentences in a paragraph? Are the correct transitions used to support the organization of ideas? Does there
seem to be a higher level of organization at work in the draft (cause and effect, general to specific, compare and
contrast, etc.) and how/why do you see it or not see it? Does the order of paragraphs match the order of points argued
in the thesis? Explain and provide suggestions for improvement of the organization.

[The writer has used a great deal of transitions and they are very clear. The writer repeats his claim multiple times. The
transition he uses are the same repeated words. He uses the transitions in both paragraphs in between each idea linking
the first idea to another idea. He does seem to have some level of organization to this essay. I believe he does not have a
clear thesis to defining what is going to be in each body paragraph.]

In-text citation – Are paraphrases and quotations correctly cited in MLA format through in-text citation? If any evidence
seems not to have been correctly cited, be clear about where the issue is and how you would fix it.

[I believe he correctly sites all of the quotations, or any evidence he received from the Ted talk or Barbara’s article.]

Work Cited page – Is there a Work Cited page? Are the entries on the Work Cited page in correct MLA format for a web
article? {See the prompt.)

[yes, there is a works cited page and it is in MLA format for a web article.]

Conclusion – Thesis, Closure, and Expansion

Conclusion – Is there a conclusion? Does it restate the thesis? Does it summarize all of the main points made in each
body paragraph? Does the conclusion include more than summary, meaning some kind of further thought is offered on
the topic? Does the conclusion address “so what?” and “who cares?” Provide any advice on improving the conclusion
you think would be helpful.

[There is a conclusion, and it does properly summarize the thesis and all the main points he has made throughout his
essay. The conclusion does address the “so what?” and “who cares?” the conclusion includes why it is important for
people to be optimistic, which is part of the main claim.]

What are the strongest aspects of this paper? What really works? What are the weakest aspects? What doesn’t work?
[The strongest aspect of this essay is the context he uses in the personal experiences that he includes in his writing. The
weak parts of this essay is the lack of better wording, to be specific the repetition of “I disagree because…” I Believe he
could use different wording that would further his writing capabilities. ]

Which steps of the traditional essay structure (see your notes) does the writer do well, and which areas does the writer
still struggle with? How can you tell?

[I believe he followed the traditional essay structure perfectly. He has an introduction, body paragraphs, and a
conclusion along with a thesis. Michael includes a great deal of evidence and good usage of sources.]