Imaginary Peer Review

For Wednesday you are reading a student definition paper. Imagine that you had to offer peer review feedback to that student, i.e. to John Doe.

What would you point out as the biggest strength of the paper?
What would you suggest that John work on some more?
If he wants to add an evaluation section towards the end of the argument, what would you suggest that he writes about?

Please be as specific as possible in your answers to the questions above.

Posted by hristova on November 02, 2004 at 10:34 AM
Comments

1. Strenghts- the paper was written in simple words where anyone can understand the topic at hand
2. Weaknesses- Sources are poorly sited. I dont quite understand the (3) type thing. Doe also sites McPhearson and Elison opposed to many of the other sources.
3. Evaluation- Are gay parents as good parents as heterosexual parents?

Posted by Nancy on November 2, 2004 07:05 PM

Hi;
I think that the paper flows well enough and it's not boring. It has a logical order in defining a family and matching homosexual couples with this category. But the citations are not clear which I see as the greatest weakness of the paper. I think the paper has an appropriate ending.
C'ya tomorrow...
Halil

Posted by Halil SAKA on November 2, 2004 09:39 PM

I suppose the biggest strength of the paper is that the sources are used well. In that I mean it supports his arguments well. However he alienates the opposition quickly and does not give any reason to appear credible. I mean he has the research but he doesn't convince you that the people who did the research are credible. I am not sure what you mean by what he should evaluate, but I am going to assume that you mean his paper and in that I guess he should comment on that he does well defining it but not too well arguing for the cause.

Posted by kevin on November 3, 2004 01:22 AM

By talking about evaluation, I mean the optional evaluative part of the paper that gives readers a clue where the case fits into the category: if it is a great member of the caterogy or just a decent one. How can you help John with suggestions if he want to add such a section?

Posted by Mariela Hristova on November 3, 2004 07:58 AM

The paper seems to flow pretty well and seems easy to read for all audiences. However, the paper appears to be more informative, the opposition is not stated clearly. Also, the MLA citations are very confusing and you are not able to differentiate between the different articles. Also, as far as the evaluation portion goes, I'm not sure on how exactly he can utilize this section.

Posted by Rakesh Mehta on November 3, 2004 10:48 AM

I think this paper is written in a easy to straight forward and simple style, which is a strong side. The citations provide good and strong points. I can't see many things to improve on this paper.

Posted by Tao on November 3, 2004 12:38 PM

The strengths of the paper are that its a good simple, and direct paper. He uses good sources and detail. But weeknesses contain grammar problems and sentence structure errors. He also has some uneccessary information or at least gives too much information.overall good sources and citation, good material but needs to organize it better.

Posted by Miguel on November 3, 2004 01:32 PM