PEER REVIEW FORM: Rhetorical Analysis of Visual Rhetoric
Name of paper author: John Jordan
Name of Peer reviewer: Brett Seefeldt
Paper title: Old Spice Rhetorical Analysis
1. Thesis. Quote or paraphrase the thesis of the paper. Is it a good thesis? How could it be
improved in terms of argument or writing? Where is it in the paper ... at the beginning?
… at the end? Is that an effective choice?
Old spice changed their target audience and are using plays on gender stereotypes, and
gender humor to connect with this new audience.
This idea is split up into 2 separate sections in the introduction. I would try to merge the
thesis statements into one sentence or have the two sentences together.
2. Introduction: strategies. Does the introduction make you want to keep reading? Why
or why not? Is it a fairly traditional opening? How would you characterize the writing
strategies used in the introduction?
Good use of a question to pull in the audience. This is a good writing strategy, but you
give the answer away too quickly. Let the audience have time to think about it for a
while. Give a hint or ask a question that refines it a little more. Aka “Would you believe it
is a men’s hygiene item” or “Up until recently this product had an image of stuffy ancient
white men.”
3. Introduction: Follow-through. Having read the rest of the paper, did you find that the
introduction gave you a good idea of what the author actually did address in the rest of
the paper? If not, what is the main point that the author really makes?
In the introduction the author said Old Spice is targeting a new audience. In the
conclusion the author defines this audience as a younger audience. In the body of the
paper the author talks about audience but does not define it as younger or new.
4. Introduction & Conclusion. Think about the relationship between the introduction
and conclusion. Does the conclusion work simply as a summary or a
reiteration/rephrasing of the introduction? Does the author use other writing strategies in
his/her conclusion? Is it a successful conclusion in that it offers closure to the paper while
emphasizing the main thesis strongly one last time?
The conclusion does a good job of complimenting the Introduction and the Body of the
paper. It paraphrases the thesis and reinforces some of the arguments made in the body
of the paper.
5. Strategies of Development. What strategies of development do you see the author
using on the paragraph level or in the paper as a whole? Which are the most successful?
Unfortunately I do not know what strategies of development are.
6. Development of Ideas. Are the main points of the paper sufficiently developed? Does
the paper bring up any interesting points that you would like to see developed further? Do
you find any spots where the paper goes off on a tangent or addresses
peripheral/irrelevant material? Are there any spots where the author relies too heavily on
generalization?
I would like the paper to more clearly show how the add targets the new market and/or
how or why that new market finds it appealing. Go deeper than “Manly Men”. Define
who the old market was vs who it is targeting now. The paper assumes you know about
the old market.
I like how the paper developed the contrast between the two different products, showing
why one was more likely for married men.
7. Organization of Argument. Is the argument organized effectively? Do the ideas
follow each other in a logical, understandable way? Are there any places that are
confusing?
The arguments start to get clear from the paragraph that talks about Kairos on. When the
visual element of the ad are discussed it left me feeling disheveled and a little confused. I
know it is an odd ad but it felt even odder in the writing.
8. Transitions. How are the transitions between paragraphs? Mark with * on the paper
one transition that worked really well and write out below why you thought it was
successful. Mark with an x on the paper one transition that is less polished and write out
below why it doesn't work as well.
* “The Old Spice commercial uses rhetorical strategies such as ethos and pathos, plays on gender
stereotypes, and gender humor to connect with the audience and persuade them to buy Old Spice body
wash.
Initially the commercial begins with actor Isaiah Mustafa walking through a harsh jungle.”
I like how the paragraph ends by summarizing the papers goal while doing a good job of
leading into the visual description of the ad.
X “Old Spice targeted men specifically but also targeted women who have a man in their life who would
purchase products for them.
Kairos is defined as “a time when conditions are right for the accomplishment of a crucial action:
the opportune and decisive moment,” (“Kairos”).”
The definition of Kairos does not fit with the sentiment of the last sentence. Lead with an
idea that talks about women and timing or something else that ties in. Then use that to
lead to the definition of Kairos.
9. Paragraphing. Think about the paragraphs themselves for a moment. Does the author
use topic sentences? Is that a successful decision? Are the paragraphs more or less
cohesive -- i.e. do they focus on/develop one idea? Are any paragraphs too long or too
short for easy reading?
For a shitty first draft it is a good start. The paper has topic sentences, and there is a
good flow once you get past the visual elements paragraph.
10. Style I. Is the point of view consistent throughout the paper? Does the author use
precise, vivid language? Is there unnecessary repetition? Conversely, does the author use
repetition deliberately for rhetorical effect? Is that successful? Give examples as
applicable.
The point of view is inconstant, at times it feels like the paper is addressing a teacher
about a project that author and teacher have inside knowledge about, other times it talks
to the reader about the reader, and other sections feel good, with the author presenting
their argument to the reader.
11. Style II. Does s/he vary sentence structure? Are there too many short, choppy
sentences, or ones that are overly complex and need to be broken up? How do the
sentences flow into one another? Do you find any places where it seems that author
deliberately has manipulated the organization of his/her sentences to enhance this sense
of flow?
I did not see any sentence structure elements that had glaring issues. Good for a first
draft.
12. Write out below one sentence that you really liked and why you liked it.
“All of these visual and verbal elements merge together to flesh out this concept of the manly man that
society has created.”
I liked the use of the phrase “flesh out”. It describes how effective the visual and verbal
elements are describing the concept while at the same time it plays with the subject
matter of strong, buff, shirtless men.
13. Write out below one sentence that you thought could have used improvement and
why.
“I would also like readers to know how simply word choice and structure of a sentence
can change the tone of a statement.”
Why are you telling me (the reader) what you want the reader (me) to get out of the
paper? It feels odd, like when someone talks to themselves in the third person.
14. Grammar & Punctuation. Are there any grammatical/mechanical errors (including
problems with punctuation)? Are there any consistent problems with diction, usage, or
words misused that you can point out to the author?
I did not see any.
15. Treatment of Primary Text. Did the author describe the text effectively? Was it
reproduced effectively within the paper? Are there any aspects of the text that could be
analyzed further to contribute to the impact of the argument?
The paper’s ideas are clearly expressed in the introduction and conclusion but the
supporting arguments in the body are vague and unclear at times. Try to more clearly
support and define your argument in the body.
16. Free-write. Free-write general comments to the author, reflecting on the paper and
your experience of reading it.
I think you have a good start and I cannot wait to see the final paper.