RBA PEER REVIEW FORM
AUTHOR NAME:
PEER REVIEWER NAME:
As you peer review your partners’ drafts, fill in comments and suggestions in the space designated below (you
can do this electronically or by hand, on a print out). At the end, generate a summative comment of your
suggestions for revision.
THE IDEAL
COMMENTS, PRAISE & SUGGESTIONS
TOPIC: Interesting, nuanced; not clichéd or banal;
appropriate for the assignment objectives and class theme
TITLE: Catchy, well-written title that gives the reader a
sense of topic and argument
THESIS STATEMENT: Clear, precise, and well-defined; using
language of claim rather than vague, speculative language
of a proposal; sophisticated in both statement and insight,
connecting to a larger issue. Additional peer review
instructions: Highlight the thesis statement in the essay
using a highlighter or by underlining the sentence(s) on the
draft.
ARGUMENT: Underlying overall argument developed in the
essay matches thesis statement; essay delivers on the
“promise” of the thesis; avoids tangents and digressions;
author’s argument is clear and sophisticated; it is
showcased and drives the essay (rather than evidence
driving the essay)
1
INTRODUCTION: Shows attention to audience and hooking
the reader; clearly establishes topic and argument
BACKGROUND & DEFINITION: Provides effective
background or theoretical framework to support the
central argument; fully utilizes theoretical framework
(doesn’t just abandon it after mentioning it); defines
important terms at the appropriate place; may integrate
background material across essay rather than having a
large, unwieldy background section
CONCLUSION: Ties the paper together; resists relying
exclusively on summary; demonstrates attention to crafting
of language; works in conjunction with intro to bookend
the argument; solidifies the “So What?” of the argument
EVIDENCE: Strong, effective use of specific forms of
evidence to support the argument; uses both primary and
secondary evidence. Synthesizes multiple arguments from
different types of sources appropriate to topic – strong
evidence of rigorous research, sense of the conversation
about the topic & author’s contribution to it
2
EVIDENCE- INTEGRATION & ANALYSIS: Effective use of
summary, paraphrase, and direct quotations to support
claims; polished use of signal phrases and attributions;
consistently and effectively comments on, adds to,
qualifies, and critiques source material. Additional peer
review instructions: 1. Indicate one place in draft where
evidence is used extremely effectively – label “effective use
of evidence. 2. Indicate one place in draft where evidence
could be integrated/used more effectively – label “revise
use of evidence”
EVIDENCE – ETHICAL USE: Ethical use of source material;
provides context and appropriate citation/documentation
VISUAL EVIDENCE: If uses visuals, uses as evidence to
support argument rather than as decoration; text wrapped
and image located in an effective place in relation to verbal
exposition; includes image source citations in MLA form
after works cited/bibliography as a separate “Image
Sources” list
STRUCTURE – COHESIVE/COHERENT PARAGRAPHS: Each
paragraph has a coherent, cohesive purpose, using a topic
sentence to guide reader. Additional peer review
instructions: 1. Highlight one topic sentence on the draft
that effectively indicates topic of the paragraph to follow.
3
Label on draft as “effective topic sentence”. 2. Indicate on
draft one paragraph that could use a stronger topic
sentence or sense of cohesion – label “revise for topic
sentence/cohesion”
TRANSITIONS: Fluid transitions between paragraphs and
ideas; demonstrates conceptual relationship between
paragraphs/ideas; develops, reinforces or builds on central
claim; if uses subheads, uses them in conjunction with
transitions rather than instead of and creates rhetorical,
interesting subheads. Additional peer review
instructions: 1. Highlight one moment of effective
transition between paragraphs and label “effective
transition” on the draft. 2. Highlight one moment where
transition could be smoother and label “needs more fluid
transition”
STRUCTURE – COHERENCE & FLUIDITY: Well-constructed,
purposeful coherent structure; arrangement of paragraphs
leads the reader through argument effectively; good sense
of forward momentum. Additional peer review
instructions: Highlight one topic sentence that reinforces
the argument AS WELL AS providing transition and topic of
paragraph. Label on draft as “analytic/argumentative topic
sentence”
4
STYLE & CRAFTING: Clear, consistent, & engaging style,
appropriate to topic and audience; avoids bias; shows
attention to crafting language through word choice,
sentence structure, rhythm, voice, pacing, and effective use
of rhetorical appeals and strategies of development.
Additional peer review instructions: Underline one
sentence (or short sequence of sentences) in the draft that
seems well-crafted to create a rhetorical impression on the
reader – for instance, look for word choice or some of the
principles of high style laid out by Lunsford
ETHOS: Clearly establishes the ethos of the author as a
writer and researcher. Additional peer review
instructions: Use a star on the draft to indicate one place
where the author establishes ethos, whether overtly
through invoking his/her own author, through voice, style,
or through use of evidence.
DESIGN & DELIVERY: Attention to aesthetics of design
CORRECTNESS: Demonstrates mastery of appropriate
conventions of academic discourse, format, grammar,
punctuation, source citation, and language usage
5
FINAL COMMENTS
Below include a final summary comment of your thoughts on the draft, including references to both what works
in the draft and what could use more work/revision. At the end of your comment (aim for 200 words for the
summative comment), list the top 4 elements you think that the author should work on in revision.
Top priorities for revision:
1.
2.
3.
4.
6