Jasmine Raine Rivera (Dark Academia Team)

Dr. Leslie Bruce

English 307

12 May 2022

Definition Team Peer Reviews

Paper Author: Anessa Rodriguez and Adrian Zermeno

Peer Reviewer's Name: Alexis Barrilleaux, Ezekiel Basilio, Alexa Gomez, Jasmine Raine
Rivera, Aisha Shah
Part 1: SLO Scores
SLO #1--Rhetorical Awareness (written for the right audience and purpose):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #2--Ethical Research (correct citations; diverse, authoritative sources):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #3--Persuasion (claims supported with appropriate evidence):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #4—Organization (sensible, reader-friendly flow and development):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #5--Language and Design (appropriate-level language and user-friendly, logical
design):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #6—Collaboration (Sections appear to be written by one student)
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

Part 2: Successes and Challenges

Two Successes:
1. SLO #3 Persuasion: The examples they provided were well-written, clearly
displaying how they were relevant to the term. Their definition in the introduction not
only defined “hamartia” as a “tragic flaw” but also specified that it eventually led to
 the character’s downfall. These 2 aspects—the character’s fall and their eventual
downfall—were depicted in every subsequent example, such as connecting Darth
Vader’s fear of loss with the atrocities he commits.
2. SLO #5: Language and Design: The language they used was user-friendly and easy to
understand. The term “hamartia” is quite broad and applies in different ways to every
story and character. This team was able to simplify that concept by providing several
examples—both in classic literature like Shakespeare and Paradise Lost and in
modern examples which might be more relevant to readers who are not familiar with
older literature. They also depicted use of the term outside of literature.

Two Challenges:
1. SLO #4 Organization: Although the quality and quantity of examples was definitely
sufficient, we felt that they actually overtook most of the paper, to the point where it
felt repetitive. We also thought that because the paper lacked other sections, the term
was not depicted in a variety of ways and thus not thoroughly defined. They might
want to include a comparison/contrast section in which they discuss the word in
relation to other literary devices specific to character archetypes, or a criticism
section which explores the downsides to using a hamartia in a work (i.e. it’s a cliche,
it makes your character and their story predictable, etc.). Almost none of the
examples they listed were women, so it might also be interesting to explore exactly
why a majority of “tragic heroes” seem to only be men.
2. SLO #2 Ethical Research: It seems that they mixed citation systems which makes it
difficult to see exactly what they are referencing and makes their citations unclear in
general. This might frustrate readers who are trying to fact check information or are
looking for further reading sources on the topic. Perhaps using just the number
system would be a more effective way of citing their information.
Paper Author: Hazel Corona, Tiana Bernaola, Esme Vasquez, Madison Favlea
Peer Reviewer's Name: Alexis Barrileaux, Ezekiel Basilio, Alexa Gomez, Jasmine Raine
Rivera, Aisha Shah
Part 1: SLO Scores
SLO #1--Rhetorical Awareness (written for the right audience and purpose):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #2--Ethical Research (correct citations; diverse, authoritative sources):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #3--Persuasion (claims supported with appropriate evidence):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #4—Organization (sensible, reader-friendly flow and development):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #5--Language and Design (appropriate-level language and user-friendly, logical
design):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #6—Collaboration (Sections appear to be written by one student)
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

Part 2: Successes and Challenges

Two Successes:
1. SLO #1 Rhetorical Awareness: The paper has well-chosen and relevant sections. We
felt that the information was depicted in a variety of ways and explored the topic in
thorough detail, including its origins and uses. For example, the "core values" section
within the history portion of the paper was unique to this term and helped connect the
"invitational argument" from the rhetoric/literary context that we know it in to its
feminist origins.
2. SLO #5 Language and Design: The design looks visually pleasing. I, it is easy to read
every section and the visual elements are not in the way of the text. The paper also
features a clear organizational pattern.

Two Challenges:
1. SLO #6 Collaboration: Though the paper is sectioned smartly, the writing style could
flow better. At the moment, it's easy to tell that every section was written by a
different person, and some sections are longer and more detailed than others. The
history section includes a brief overview before going more in-depth in the meaning
behind the term, while the section that explains the structure of the invitational
argument is much more simplistic in comparison and could include more information
to balance it out.
2. SLO #4 Organization: The examples section is helpful as is but could be expanded on
more. Perhaps it would be effective to combine the structure section and the
examples section. That way, with every separate part of the argument, you could
include parts of a real invitational argument along with it. This will allow you to
explore your examples in-depth while simultaneously providing specific examples of
how the structure of the argument is used in real life.
Paper Author: Foreshadowing group
Peer Reviewer's Name: Alexis Barrileaux, Ezekiel Basilio, Alexa Gomez, Jasmine Raine
Rivera, Aisha Shah

Part 1: SLO Scores

SLO #1--Rhetorical Awareness (written for the right audience and purpose):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #2--Ethical Research (correct citations; diverse, authoritative sources): 1-
Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #3--Persuasion (claims supported with appropriate evidence):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #4—Organization (sensible, reader-friendly flow and development):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #5--Language and Design (appropriate-level language and user-friendly, logical
design):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
SLO #6—Collaboration (Sections appear to be written by one student)
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

Part 2: Successes and Challenges

Two Successes:
1. SLO #5 Language and Design: This team has a variety of sections with several in-
depth examples, allowing readers to become familiar with the information from
multiple perspectives. The order that the sections appear in the paper is cohesive and
presents the information in a logical manner. The paper starts with general
information like the etymology and importance of the word, then goes into more
detail with examples across multiple mediums.
2. SLO #5: Language and Design: The graphics are well chosen. This is the first paper
in which we saw a table being used it helped visually present the types of dialogue in
a digestible manner. We also found this to be an effective method of presenting
examples without explaining them in long paragraphs like most papers.

Two Challenges:
1. SLO #2 Ethical Research: This paper does not have a reference list therefore making
it difficult to gauge the validity of their sources, and by extension the validity of their
definition itself. The paper’s citation style is also inconsistent. Implementing a
proper reference list and more organized citation style would greatly help in verifying
sources of information for readers.
2. SLO #5 Rhetorical Awareness: The tone of the writing is a bit too casual. For
example, the section title "Foreshadowing in lots of Mediums" reads informal
because of the word "lots." Audiences of college education or higher may find the
tone to be unprofessional and may want to discredit the seriousness of the
information presented due to its writing style.