Peer Review One:

Two Successes:
1. One thing that stood out to us is the layout of the project. Very easy to
understand, read, and follow along. While also guiding the reader from one
section to the next! The style of the project is very formal and informative, so
we as readers if looking for something specific can just scroll and find. Also
enjoyed that the project showcases in what ways and how hamartia has been
used in the past.
2. The project presentation of the history of Hamartia and its uses in Greek
Mythology! First mentioning it in the history and then adding how in
subsequent sections. Therefore showing the readers where and how Hamartia
came from and how it was used.

Two Challenges:
1. One thing we would like to see is the use of Hamartia in current works of
entertainment. Where do we see hamartia today in literature? In movies? In
music? We think there could be a whole section just talking about how hamartia
is currently used in different works. This would help the reader make a
connection to the project as they have seen hamartia in the works.
2. One slight error that persisted in the text was the lack of in-text citations. This
is a small error that is easily fixed, but it was something that the professor
mentioned as being important. Your images did have links, but you may want to
include those with the image as well, similar to the in-text citations.

Peer Review Two:

Two Successes:
1. The inclusion of where it originated from and where its popularity is stemming
from in current times parallels that of a wikipedia page. Also going into details
about where it is thought to have come from (“credited to the..”) is something
informative about the topic that would typically be found on web pages like
this. The Origins of Dark Academia is a good section that tells the readers all
they need to know about the past and present.
2. The notable authors section is well researched, as each of these authors meets
the aesthetic of Dark Academia. The inclusion of “The genre…Edgar Allan Poe,”
 was well thought out because if the reader does not know about the author's
literature they are able to get a general idea from the examples given. It is also
good that you connect the past works of literature to the present showing that
the aesthetic is used from author to author. This provides a sense of unanimity
in the aesthetic in literature.

Two Challenges:
1. The rhetorical awareness in the introduction does not quite match that of a
Wikipedia page. The first two paragraphs after the title seem more like an
introduction to an essay rather than an introduction to a definition page. We
would suggest changing the wording to make it more informational. For
example “This keyword is a very popular and up and coming aesthetic which
parallels past literary genres such as gothic or romantic literature…,” to, “Dark
academia is an aesthetic that parallels past literary genres such as gothic or
romantic allowing the past and the present to merge. While it has been present
for a couple of years, the popularity of this aesthetic has been rapidly increasing
as of recent times…”
2. More examples could be added to the example section to give the readers a
better idea of what the aesthetic is related to literature. While the Harry Potter
example is a good representation of the aesthetic, it only gives one picture of
the aesthetic in relation to literature. We would recommend adding another
example and relating it to the first showing the connection between the two
writings. This would strengthen the overall picture of what the aesthetic is. You
could also add details of what it would be in writing and how authors often use
it instead of a direct example.

Peer Review Three:

Two Successes:
1. We loved your topic! You addressed your project with astounding rhetorical
awareness. The diction you used was perfectly professional but also easy to
understand; it didn’t include unnecessarily high diction but was still
professional in the way that you addressed your topic.
2. Your collaboration was done really well. If we did not know this was a group
project, we would have guessed that there was only one person working on it.
The organization was very cohesive and it was clear which headings and
subheadings were related. It was clear to me that you worked together on this.
Two Challenges:
1. We're sure that this is simply still in development, but your research and
citations were a little bare, you only have two in your works cited page and we
had a hard time finding where they were in the document. Finding good
sources can really pull your paper together and give evidence for your analysis.
2. A very small design complication that we observed on page three was that
section “Invitational Argument Partition” and all of its sub-sections were
oriented onto the right side of the page despite the rest of the document being
aligned to the left. I think it would be best if you make sure to align your
document properly in order to keep your paper uniform.