UWP 1: Expository Writing

Instructor: Jonathan Radocay

Peer Review and Revision Worksheet 11/22/2017

Instructions:

Reviewing: Carefully review the two drafts from your classmates. Then reread the essays and
complete a review sheet for each one. Plan to allow time to review worksheets and drafts with
writer.

Revising: Consider and discuss the comments you receive. You do not need to make all (or any)
recommended changes, but you should consider them.

1. What specifically is the writers Discourse Community? Have they addressed the goals and
characteristics of this community or merely labeled a group? Have they analyzed and truly
explored this community or scarcely observed them? What suggestions would you make as a
reader that would help them get away from simply telling a story or narrative about a group
of people?

Writers discourse community is Memorial Unions game area.

Yes, the writer has addressed the goals of the community
The writing is more descriptive, an opinion from the writer can help. Maybe how does
she connect with them.

2. How has the writer discussed the concept of Discourse Community? Have they used terms
such as language, genre, literacy, or discourse? Do they acknowledge and understand their
Discourse Communitys forms of communication? Do they demonstrate how these forms
work and why they are significant to the interests, goals, and aims of the Discourse
Community?

The writer has given brief history about the the discourse community and how they work
together in the community. The communication part is explained well.

3. Does the paper lead to a so what? Does the paper give you insights into the world of the
chosen Discourse Community or does the writer merely tell you their own personal
experience with the community? Does the writer teach you what membership looks like: who
belongs in the community, who doesnt, and how the community determines membership
criteria? Does the paper explain what gives away the fact that somebody either belongs or
does not belong to the Discourse Community?

The paper leads into a narrative of the working style of MUGA. It does give away the fact that
somebody either belongs to the community or does not belong to it. However, if personal
connection is added it maybe better.

4. What authorities or sources of outside information does the writer use? How does the writer
use their interview? How credible does the interview seem, and does help you understand
something important about the Discourse Community? What other primary sources does the
writer use? Observational notes? Emails, screenshots of Facebook Groups? Posters? If you
think the writer could benefit from additional primary source material, what other sources
could the writer draw from?

The writer uses interview and observation well into her writing. Maybe she could add more
scholarly sources to make her paper stronger.

5. Do they discuss conflict within the Discourse Community? Do they address how these
conflicts are resolved? Do they discuss the membership hierarchy of the Discourse
Community and how that hierarchy is determined? How do you know someone is an
authority figure within the community?

There doesnt seem any conflict in the paper. Little confused is the original hire superiority to
secondary hire a conflict?

6. Does the research paper maintain your interest, and is it written in an engaging way? List the
most interesting part(s).

It does keep me engaged. Interesting part is the way they communicate with each other and the
superiority one worker holds over the other.

7. What are parts that the writer could work on? List areas of the research paper that you feel
the writer should target during revision

Add a personal experience or connection with the discourse community

Add more scholarly sources or websites
Make the conclusion tie up everything
7. Does the conclusion adequately tie the project up? Does it answer any unanswered
questions? Does it leave the reader with a sense of closure?

Couldnt find the conclusion tying up everything. As the last paragraph seems a part of the
writing than a conclusion.

8. Comment briefly on the grammar and mechanics.

Could not find much grammar mistakes.