HIST 481: PEER REVIEW CHECKLIST, PAPER DRAFT
Author: _________________________________________ Reviewer: ________________________________________
Peer reviewers: read the draft once through, marking editing changes as you go. Then briefly address the
following questions, on this page. Attach a separate page with a paragraph or two on your most important
criticisms. BE HONEST (but respectful). These comments can only help your peer!
1. Completion. Is the paper complete? What is missing?
2. Introduction. Does the essay include an introduction indicating the broader historical significance and interest of the
topic? Does the introduction include specific background information necessary for placing the topic in context?
3. Thesis. Does the essay include a clear, specific, and historically significant thesis (a claim provable within the limits of
the essay)?
4. Argument. Does the essay include both narrative and analysis? Is the argument sufficiently sophisticated and
convincing? Is the logic clear, specific, and sound, and does it support the thesis? Are there logical elements missing?
Are other interpretations addressed? Are key terms and concepts clearly defined?
5. Evidence. Are the main points in the essay supported by quotations and examples from the historical evidence
(primary and/or secondary reading, lectures, discussions, logic, and common sense)? Are the sources fairly summarized,
in the author’s own words? Does the essay show a clear and accurate understanding of source materials? Does the essay
make use of a wide number (at least two primary—the more the better!--and ten secondary—chapters, articles, parts of
books, websites count as ½ source of the required ten secondaries) and range (articles, books, internet materials, reviews,
and/or government documents) of source materials? Are there research gaps?
6. Conclusion. Does the essay include a conclusion, revisiting the thesis and reiterating key evidence? Does the
conclusion suggest the historical impact or outcome of the paper topic, beyond its specific context?
7. Citation. Does the essay follow Turabian in properly and consistently crediting others' words and ideas in the
footnotes? Is there a properly formatted bibliography?
8. Organization. Does the essay have a definable introduction, body and conclusion? Are the paragraphs topically
organized and connected by means of clear transitions?
9. Style. Is the language in the essay appropriately formal? Is the vocabulary precise and well-chosen? Does the writing
flow easily and from sentence to sentence, and is the rhythm variable? Does the essay avoid passive voice constructions,
run-on sentences, and sentence fragments? Are verb tenses consistent?
10. Proofreading. Does the paper show good editing to eliminate errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling?
11. Format. Is there a properly formatted Turabian-style title page? Is the paper at least fifteen pages in length, not
counting bibliography? Are the spacing, margins, and font appropriate and consistent? Does any part of the paper look
peculiar?
Authors: Make editing corrections and turn in a new draft to me (hard copy only). Please include this page and
your peer reviewer’s critique. Remember, the rough draft you submit to me is graded, for all of the above.