This checklist is for your own final use.
Start a Google Doc and for each point listed here, respond with at least two sentences evaluating how well your essay satisfies the specified criteria. IF YOU’RE NOT CERTAIN ABOUT HOW TO ASSESS YOUR WORK, THEN CONTACT ME AND TALK ABOUT IT.
These points canand shouldbe used as annotations on your portfolio.
This is a final review, so we’re going to be as comprehensive as possible.
First, read through the entire essay one time in order to get a sense of what the essay is about and how it’s working. Don’t stop and make notes — just read. Try to grok the essay’s main points.
Review the introduction.
The intro should follow this structure. If any part of this structure is unclear or could be improved, make a note in your peer review of the intro. For the peer review itself, write out one sentence for each part of the structure and evaluate for your partner how well each part is working. If one part needs improvement, make a suggestion for how the improvement would work:
Introductory context. Tell the reader what this essay will be about, properly introduce the subject matter. Don’t assume the reader is very familiar with everything. The reader has general understanding, but they don’t know the name of your game, what it’s about, what the themes or genres are, or what this essay will be exploring. These things should be clear.
A thesis statement. This isn’t necessarily one succinct sentence, but it should be clearly present. Underline or highlight what you perceive the thesis to be. This should be an arguable statement.
How the thesis will be demonstrated. This should include a basic strategy and should also discuss the principle kinds of evidence that will be used. The most important pieces of evidence should be introduced here.
Make sure that your partner isn’t saving anything for later by being general. Be specific — about the context, about the thesis, about the evidence.
Body paragraph topic sentences. Check to see if they follow a logical structure.
Copy the topic sentences into a separate area of your peer review document. Label this area, Topic Sentence Structure.
Beginning with the second topic sentence, assign each topic sentence a number from 1 to 34.
1: This sentence doesn’t necessarily follow the previous sentence clearly. I’m not certain about the connection between the two ideas. They’re really pretty independent, as written.
2: Eh. Yeah, I can sort of see how these two ideas are both connected or perhaps successive. But this concern isn’t exactly leaping off the page.
3: I can see how these ideas are connected and successive, but could this be stronger, according to Greg? Probably.
4: These ideas are connected, successive, and Greg would absolutely approve of how this is working. In fact, I’m so certain of this, that if Greg didn’t agree, I would be willing for this peer review to not count.
For topic sentences that fall under scores from 1 to 3, rewrite the topic sentence so that a connection is clear.
Structure. Review all body paragraphs in order to make sure they follow the structure established in the Bloodchild Analysis assignment. This structure should be followed. If this isn’t being followed, make a note of this and clearly indicate which parts of this structure are missing.
Indicate your response to this peer review by numbering each body paragraph (skip the intro, obviously), beginning with 1, and then providing that paragraph’s peer review, like so:
1: This paragraph mostly follows the required structure, but deviates in two ways. The first way …
Write clear, correct sentences for the peer review. Don’t make quick notes.
Evidence Review. At three points in the essay, there should be clear academic evidence being offered. This evidence is from an academic article that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Grade each example of evidence on the following criteria.
Three-Step Method. The evidence’s handling should be through the Three-Step Method. Make sure the evidence is clearly introduced, the title is given, and the author(s)’ credibility is clearly established. The quote or paraphrase should be to-the-point. There should be subsequent analysis that connects the evidence to the argument.
Relevance. Is the evidence relevant? Does the evidence make sense? The evidence should be appropriate for the claim. If you don’t understand the relevance, there’s an issue. Rate this on a score of 1 to 3.
1: Um. Wut.
2: Yeah. Okay. I guess?
3: Yep. Clear. Totally makes sense.
Grammar and punctuation. Finally, do a pass through the essay in order to correct grammar and punctuation. Correct as many errors as possible. Do this through the Suggestions feature on Google Docs.
