Unit 3 Peer Review Workshop: Content

Directions: Mark your responses directly onto the paper you are editing. Or, you can write your
answers here. If you are unsure, simply state that something seems off but you are unsure of
what.

1. Does the author present a thesis statement about the rhetorical effectiveness of a peer-
reviewed article? Is this thesis clear and direct? What is it? Mark it in the text. What
suggestions do you have for the writer in order to strengthen the thesis? Has the author
chosen one (and only one) peer-reviewed article to analyze?

- The author does present a thesis statement that states how the author of the article she
is reviewing uses rhetorical devices to show her research to her audience. She chose 1
article to analyze.

2. Does the essay include a controlling idea that is not obvious to everyone? In other words,
does it reveal something not everyone would know about how and why this peer-
reviewed article is used? Where can the author develop more of an analysis or more fully
develop the ideas?

- The essay contains a controlling idea that is explained well by the author, it explains
how Herotodou employs different rhetorical devices to present research findings.

3. Does the author use elements from the article to support the thesis made about it? What
are they? Mark them in the text. Are they used as good evidence? Indicate why or why
not in the text. What kind of evidence would help the writer demonstrate his/her point?
- The author uses elements of the articles like the tone, pathos, logos, and contradiction
to support the thesis statement made. She uses evidence directly from the article to
reinforce her thesis.
4. Does the essay maintain a cohesive focus around the thesis? Does the author use solid
transitions to guide his/her ideas? Determine, as a reader, how you want to be presented
with the information. Does the organization work for you? Indicate suggestions for
organization and transitions. Also, mark any tangents that you find in the essay.
- The essay does maintain a cohesive focus around the thesis, the thesis being the
rhetorical effectiveness of Herotodou’s article. The organization of the work is very
effective because it is organized neatly that helps the reader follow along easily. I did
not see any tangents.
5. Where could the author use more detail to further illustrate his/her claim? Indicate these
places in the text.
6. Are the introduction and conclusion focused on the main point of the essay? Does the
conclusion answer the three questions? (1. Did I do what I said I would do? 2. Why is this
important? 3. What do I want my audience to do with this information?)
 - The introduction and conclusion of this essay both have a general focus on the main
point of the essay and the conclusion covers all questions asked.
7. Indicate in the text the author’s strengths and weaknesses.
- Some strengths I saw was the way the author articulates the purpose of the essay and
how she organizes her essay.
- The main weakness I see in this essay is some areas that lack supporting details to the
authors statements and a couple of run-on sentences
8. What three revision suggestions do you have for the writer?
- Add more examples from Herotodou’s article to support claims
- Elaborate more when presenting ideas
- Make it into MLA format
9. Indicate in the text where the author needs more details.

10. Indicate in the text where the author needs more evidence.

11. Indicate in the text three places where the author deserves praise for this essay.