PEER EDITING CHECKLIST
Date: ____________
Author: _________________________
Peer Editor:
________________________
Please provide a check mark () next to each question the author has successfully completed. If the
writing does not fulfill the requirement(s) below, mark an (X) and write notes in the comment box for each
section describing what the author needs to improve for his/her next draft. As you go through the peer
editing process, edit the paper directly. Be clear as possible in your editing and comments so the author
can understand your feedback. Guidelines are provided to assist you in the feedback process.
Format






1. Labeled with name, date, and class?
2. Titled?
3. Double Spaced?
4, Paragraph indented? (Draw an arrow where paragraphs need to be indented).
5. No more than 12 pt font?
6. Is there a works cited page with appropriately cited sources for those not provided by your
teacher?
I. Idea Development
 7. Does the paper have a clear thesis statement? (Underline the thesis statement).
 8. Does the thesis statement appear early in the paper so the audience can understand what the
paper will be about?
 9. Does the thesis statement cover the entire scope of your paper’s content?
 10. Does the thesis statement explain the importance of the thesis/analysis (the “so what”) of the
essay?
Idea Development Comments:
Copyright Center for Collaborative Education, 2012
1
II. Supporting Evidence
 11. Does each body paragraph contain at least three pieces of supporting evidence? (Number the
evidence in each paragraph).
 12. Is the evidence presented is relevant to the topic being discussed?
 13. Does the author distinguish fact from opinion when presenting evidence?
 14. Does the author offer his/her own analysis on the evidence presented?
 15. Does the paper cite direct evidence from the supporting source or materials in each body
paragraph? (Write “DE” next to sentences that need more support).
 16. Does the paper properly integrate direct quotations by introducing them within the context of
another sentence, and being sure to establish speaker or context?
 17. Does the paper properly integrate direct quotations by following them up with analysis that
explains direct meaning made from quote? (Write “INT” next to any quotes that need further
attention).
 18. Does the paper properly integrate direct quotations by having proper parenthetical citation
format? Example: “ Quote……” (39).
Supporting Evidence Comments:
III. Organization
 19. Does the introduction provide a roadmap about what the rest of the paper will be about?
 20. Does each paragraph’s topic sentence control the content covered in that paragraph? (Write
“TS” where this change needs to occur).
 21. Does the topic sentences for each paragraph contain a controlling idea that is presented in your
thesis? (Double underline the controlling idea in each of the topic sentences).
 22. Does the paragraph order follow the same sequence as the introduction?
 23. Does the conclusion offer a “take away” point and deepen the analysis, but stay away from
going too far
into a new thought?
Organization Comments:
Copyright Center for Collaborative Education, 2012
2
IV. Conventions (and Style)






24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Does the paper have appropriate spelling? (Circle spelling errors)
Does the paper have appropriate grammar? (Circle grammar errors)
Does the paper have appropriate punctuation? (Circle punctuation errors)
Is the writing style appropriate for the intended audience?
Does the paper vary in syntax and sentence structure to make the paper more interesting?
Does the paper choose precise language and terms specific to the topic being discussed?
Conventions and Style Comments:
Next Steps: For the Author
I plan to resubmit my paper with the all of the appropriate edits from the Peer Editing Checklist and my
own revisions on: Date __________
From the Peer Editing Checklist, what edits will you make in your next draft? How will you address Idea
Development, Supporting Evidence (including citations), Organization and Conventions of the Peer
Editing Checklist? Please describe at least three significant revisions (in addition to minor formatting and
editing changes) you will adopt based on the feedback you have received here.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Copyright Center for Collaborative Education, 2012
3
5.
Additional Changes:
*** Please return the Peer Editing Checklist to your teacher with your paper after the peer editor AND
author has fully completed the form. Please sign the bottom of this form before returning this document.
I have read and commented on the Peer Editing Checklist to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Author: _________________________ Date: ___________
Signature of Peer Editor: ______________________Date: ___________
Copyright Center for Collaborative Education, 2012
4