Rafael Mendez´ peer review of Hardy Tan

1. RESTATE the thesis in 15 words of less?

Churchill tended to identify and associate with people like himself.
2. Does the writer follow the instructions and guidelines?
Yes, the writing is in the proper format and is following mostly of the guidelines for the of the
paper. The writer is just applying two of the minimum three reading to be analyzed.
- Does the paper include only the documents assigned?
Yes.
- Is there improper outside research material?
No.
3. You should then note which parts of the paper you find most effective and least effective,
and why.
Most effective:
Both supporting paragraphs has very strong and smartly shaped analysis that supports his reasons
and thesis.
Last effective:
The Thesis statement and reasons could be restated to be easily to understand and even more
direct.

4. Then you should LIST the major points of evidence.

All the quotations from the Childhood and Clemenceau writing.

5. Then you should note sentences or paragraphs that seem out of order, incompletely
explained, or otherwise in need of revision.
In the first Supporting paragraph there are phrases and quotations that could be restated to
achieve a clear understanding instead of just pup op with a quotation and then a
For example, when the writer says:

"no one can succeed in making me write a Latin verse or learn any Greek except the
alphabet.” Said in Childhood. If it was a child’s playful nature cause the dislike of learning,
there’s nothing to discuss.”
The last two sentences stated like the following could work better:
“Paul Addison points out the more profound source: “ the rootedness of his affections
and principles in the nobly-led, many-tiered, property-owning society he had been brought up in.”

6. Is the introduction and conclusion effective?

The Introduction is great! It has background information and points out some interesting points about
Churchill, but these questions stated: “Is it because Churchill a dictator? Is it because there are so
many enemies that he has to huddle around others to keep warn?”, may work better in the conclusion
because the suppositions of Churchill being a “dictator” are not part of the analysis in the supporting
paragraphs.
The conclusion is good! It reflects on the facts analyzed but adding a questions, as the previous stated
will be great.