Peer Review for Erin Windel:

1. Does their draft seem to be following the instructions? In other words,

did they have at least five comments and respond to those five comments
according to their template? Does the letter address the editor, publisher,
etc.? Erin’s draft follows the instructions perfectly as it provided more
the adequate number of comments and responded to each of them in a
well-mannered way, appreciating all the feedback given to her. Her letter
does address the editor and both of her peers that have provided feedback
for her essay in the correct manner.
2. Do you think they properly formatted their answers to their feedback?
Erin formatted her responses to her feedback in an easy-to-read manner
which allowed me to view and make out where each feedback begin and
finished. Along with using an font which made everything legible
allowed for her responses to really shine through.
3. Can you clearly understand the revisions from their revised assignment? I
can clearly understand the revisions from her revised assignment as Erin
highlighted the areas of change along with including numbers that
corresponded with the feedback with caused that specific change in her
essay.
4. Did the author have to incorporate a new multimodal aspect that isn't just
an essay with images? The author has included new multimodal aspects
to her assignment being that of a powerpoint which she has created using
the information form her essay.
5. (IF you can talk to your group mates outside of class or message
them, answer this question. If not disregard it). What does the author
have to say about their piece? Is there anything they feel especially
worried about that they want help with? What Erin feels about her pieces
is that she feels that her response letter draft is okay, as he has written
many letters before so she had a good idea of what she should write, but
just didn’t know how to tackle the feedback parts as she never has
written any before.
6. Are there any other aspects of their paper they can improve on? Elaborate
if so. Other aspects of the their paper that I feel like Erin could improve
on is including like a direct portion of the essay which they have changed
for each of their comments so we the reader when looking at the response
letter already have it their instead of having to go back to the document
to view it.

Peer review for Kimberly Vu:

 1. Does their draft seem to be following the instructions? In other words,
did they have at least five comments and respond to those five comments
according to their template? Does the letter address the editor, publisher,
etc.? Kimberly’s draft does have the requirements of the draft and
responded to those comments accordingly within the criteria of the
assignment. Kimberly states address the editor and the publisher at the
start of her paper giving them thanks for the work they have done on her
paper and appreciating the feedback on said draft. Along with addressing
them with the proper formality.
2. Do you think they properly formatted their answers to their feedback?
For 75% of her answers, she formatted the answer correctly to her
feedback, it was just on some occasions in which the response and the
comments which included her feedback were placed too close to each
other so it made it a bit difficult to read.
3. Can you clearly understand the revisions from their revised assignment? I
can undersandd clearly the revisions made that have been made in her
revised assignment as she labeled the specific areas of change with
numbers that matched to the according comment.
4. Did the author have to incorporate a new multimodal aspect that isn't just
an essay with images? She infact did! While Kimberly stated that she
hasn’t done it yet as there was mix up with the corrections, but she stated
that she will turn her previous revised work into a powerpoint!
5. (IF you can talk to your group mates outside of class or message
them, answer this question. If not disregard it). What does the author
have to say about their piece? Is there anything they feel especially
worried about that they want help with? After talking to Kimberly she
feels really good on her draft, and feels like their isn’t anything that she
can changed to improve it at this point.
6. Are there any other aspects of their paper they can improve on? Elaborate
if so. Some of the aspects that I feel like Kimberly could improve on is
maybe the flow of her essay at some of the points can feel a bit off but
for the most part its great! I feel like there can be minor improvements on
the response letter like the formation and the spacing of the responses
along with the comments.

My Peer’s review of my draft:

Peer Review 3: Response Letter Draft for Ryan Villasmil from Erin Weidel
1. Does their draft seem to be following the instructions? In other words, did they have at
least five comments and respond to those five comments according to their template?
Does the letter address the editor, publisher, etc.?
- Ryan seems to be following the instructions for the response letter based on what
were given. He made sure to include at least five comments, which he ended up
including six, all of which were from the Editor-In-Chief. Rayn also made sure to put
his response letter in an appropriate format, address the Editor-In-Chief’s comments,
include his edited assignment with the revisions highlighted, and salutations.

2. Do you think they properly formatted their answers to their feedback?

- Since Ryan used the APA format for the revision letter, I think his answers to the
feedback were properly formatted as they followed the given APA format. One thing I
noted was that on top of the format, he included his revisions not only after every
response, but attached as well, which I’m not sure is completely necessary.

3. Can you clearly understand the revisions from their revised assignment?
- Ryan makes it clear what he is changing for his revised assignment, and makes sure
to show the revisions he made, explain the revisions he made, and highlight them in
his revised essay.

4. Did the author have to incorporate a new multimodal aspect that isn't just an essay with
images?
- Even though Ryan didn’t do it for his draft, he did mention to me that he will be
turning his assignment into a PowerPoint once completely revised, so he did have to
incorporate a new multimodal aspect apart from images in an essay.

5. What does the author have to say about their piece? Is there anything they feel especially
worried about that they want help with?
- After talking to Ryan, he said that he felt good about his piece. The only things he
mentioned being worried about was the repetition that was mentioned his comments,
along with the flow of his writing.

6. Are there any other aspects of their paper they can improve on? Elaborate if so.
- I think the overall revision letter is very good, and there isn’t anything specifically
for Ryan’s piece that needs improvement other than minor grammatical and
technical errors. I highlighted what I would recommend changing on his revision
letter draft below, along with comments on the highlighted portion

Kim’s Peer Review for Ryan Villasmill:

Ryan included 6 comments, all primarily from Professor Orozco’s assignment review, and
responded accordingly. Following assignment instructions, the letter addresses Professor Orozco
as the Editor-in-Chief. I believe he had well written responses that divulged his own opinions or
understanding of the comments. He also included a sample of the revised text. I think his
revisions are easy to find and understand within the revised assignment. Ryan chose to turn his
major assignment into a PowerPoint presentation to showcase the multimodal aspect. He also
used this PowerPoint to formulate a script for the presentation portion.After speaking to him, the
author is confident in his piece but is worried about repetition and writing flow. It was addressed
a few times by the reviewers and then improved upon within his new revisions. I think that his
paper is good so far and that he does not need to have too many worries because of the revisions
to sentence flow and arrangement.