ENCl 102 - Spring 2020

Peer Review for Genre Analysis & Intertextuality

Name of Author: t'\Jison N<er Name of Reviewer: f)iie4r/4? (Jrfrz

Please consider the following questions in your peer review:

I. Give two comments for improvement that address the way the author has analyzed this journal
article as an example of an academic genre. Does it seem like they understand the concept of
genre, and do they analyze the specific characteristics of this genre?
Mfer reqJin.5 MJi50fl 5 \.JOrk, ·.t vct ~ f ,:,~ .d,e i"'l,J a..
l ~: ,,-~
c \et,\r u~,f~i nj of +~ ,~ ctw-epf of '9eMt'. l -t\,;/\ k the .w~y
she. metho,k:itica.n, Jot$ 11 :e:~5L r:"t,,, ::_,, ,, n?, .:-, .• J J:$,-. ,s:c~ 1'1t
rele,Jctt1i ro·1 ,,1,,
J_ -I-- 1 .
wcvl.1 f\"qybe ci_JJ ,,, ere. i.•J1o~\:. ~- rt5of1k
'
-to ¼,\e. cJ;scOufSe C&lr,\/\'lu,~:.:; ,..., liere 1)\t N \c;t (x :si5 .

2. Has the author introduced and used the rhetorical ideas/concepts from The Craft of Research and
James Porter? Whether through explicit references or discussion, is it clear that they understand
academic conversation, discourses, and intertextuality? Comment on how this aspect of the paper
might be improved.
t\ct,hSan J..J i(ltroJuce Sf\_ ,,-/, -.t'I;, Ol) V ,y>. -rc1,n JarvlB.S r<Z'.iders
eS:,9-J- Boih thr~h e"f\ic; r re~c ..· :v..,: - ~: it ~.SC->;,(.' .s.1 ,Jq_ 'J qtk I, •t:

tc vaK uifh +wse cv,--t:t-p-·1>,•O.l•J , 1. · · e , l1e, I ,t .- [ I10"..c, l Li{ J1c it

Pll\d, r,~~·peci".'-'e. ~fC£S , 1 i!l:r. k s hl d;J _;C'b (( ../
-'1. ,:~--(•

I Ir( · lJ 1op11·., I ' I . i J, 1. 1/ IL

tO!ll" I~ 11'1tse, , .... • _,., ,,:- ·\· _, ·',' 1( c1 · ,c (Ill':( ,,,(:\.fl ed · lnt_
1
3.
creci,iive wr,tcr is ·. . . .
Are the sources featured from the references/works cited of the Journal article fully discussed?
Has the author explained how those sources contribute to the arguments presented in the article?
Have they talked about the rhetorical situation and context of the conversation?
1
1hl- soUr..t~ of th-: ,· i .r,."~~l '•.t
e,xc,rn·111ed , /V\J.isoA fro,:,~ -t~ - r, 1 >f _,-fh 111::", 'i :-1ur1
C11 J..
-J..q)1Gf'5 iLhct.IJ.. .ht.p
I 7y1t(v'.
.t.1 A .J()oer,,.,
J .: _ It
n, J ·
-,,,.,,. J .• r
1'1'.~ I C\ 1i ,.._)

·J relo.+ec. to ttit cemi. , ·t; 1 1, If

4. Make a suggestion for revision concerning the overall organization of the paper and how the
author transitions from one observation and claim to another.

1hc (llt' lt ~';S5ei;f i0" tor ( !?-Ji ~it9/\ · ,,ov lJ r 1 ctyba

the conclusit?n a l;flll' 'a~ t 3-noe1her.