Initial Peer Reviewing Discussion Board:

Peer reviewing provides students the opportunity to improve the contents of their writing piece
by receiving assisting criticism and comments from other students. When peer reviewing other
students’ pieces of writing, I should always include positive and constructive annotations,
presenting comments as if I was a reader providing an initial reaction to the paper. Furthermore,
I should organize my annotations, dedicating the margins for brief comments and utilizing a
separate piece of paper to summarize initial reactions. I should include annotations that are
written in full sentences, not abbreviations, that feature thoughtful insight with elaborate
explanations. In addition, my comments should include a variety of detailed annotations such as
questions, interpretations, and advice, for a variety of different annotations allows the writer to
consider different perspectives and clarify the presented purpose. I should also include portions
that elaborate why current segments are effective and succeed.

To effectively peer review other students’ pieces of writing, the reader should first consider the
prompt of the paper, analyzing what are the critical characteristics and aspects required in a
proficient paper. After concluding the process of initially reading the paper, the reviewer needs
to evaluate what is the purpose of the paper, enabling the reviewer to understand the writer’s
initial intentions. Once the reviewer begins to leave comments and annotations on the
document, the student should connect their comments to subjects discussed in class, for these
connections allow the writer to associate mentioned issues with previously learned lessons.
Before focusing on detailed issues, such as grammar or sentence structure, primarily focus on
broad topics, for once the writer has finally revised their paper, detailed portions that were
previously included may have been removed. Finally, peer reviewers should not force the writer
to correct portions. Instead, the reviewer should suggest correct issues to the writer, and the
writer should record inspiration from the reviewer’s comments.
 Revised Peer Reviewing Discussion Board:

Peer reviewing provides students the opportunity to improve the contents of their academic
writing assignments by receiving suggestions and comments from fellow students. When peer
reviewing other students’ pieces of writing, I should always include positive and constructive
annotations, presenting comments with initial reactions. Furthermore, I need to organize my
annotations, utilizing the margins for brief sentences and utilizing a separate piece of paper to
summarize initial reactions. I should include annotations that are written in full sentences, not
abbreviations and include thoughtful insights with elaborate explanations. In addition, my
comments should include a variety of detailed annotations such as questions, interpretations,
and advice, for a variety of different annotations allows the writer to consider different
perspectives and clarify the presented purpose. I should also include portions that elaborate
why current segments are effective and succeed.

To effectively peer review other students’ pieces of writing, the reader should first consider the
provided prompt, analyzing what are the critical characteristics and aspects required for
developing proficient writing skills. After concluding the process of initially reading the paper, the
reviewer evaluates what is the purpose of the paper, enabling the reviewer to understand the
writer’s initial intentions. Once the reviewer begins to leave comments and annotations on the
document, the student should connect their comments to subjects discussed in class, for these
connections allow the writer to associate mentioned issues with previous discussed lessons.
Prior to focusing on detailed issues, such as grammar or sentence structure, primarily focus on
broad topics, for once the writer has finally revised their paper, detailed portions that were
previously included may have been removed. Finally, peer reviewers should not force the writer
to correct segments. Instead, the reviewer needs to suggest correct issues to the writer, and the
writer should record inspiration from the reviewer’s comments.