Rhetorical Analysis Peer Review Kramer

Writers

In regards to this writing assignment, what are you most worried about?
Taylor: Flow and length

Reviewers

  • First, help the writer with their stated concerns ^
  • How well can you follow the writer's line of reasoning? Are there any places where you got a little lost, or things seemed less clear?
  • Does the writer address the rhetorical situation sufficiently (purpose, audience, author, genre, and context)? If not, where do you think they need to add or clarify information?
  • Does the writer identify the:
    • catalyst
    • main claim (thesis)
    • supports
    • linkages
    • implications
  • Does the writer give evidence from the article to back up their analysis?
  • Finally, write a few sentences describing your reactions to the text as you were reading it.

Noelle:I think it flows very well at the beginning. At times you tend to jump around and kind of "get of topic" it seems because there isn't a transition. If you add a couple of transitions it's good!

You didn't address audience or who Carr is writing for, which could help the purpose portion out a little bit. I think you should add a little more for context as well.

I think you covered the catalyst, main claim, and supports well. Maybe look at the linkages part and implications (what will come of it). Also remember to provide page numbers of where the info came.

You use info from the article, but you should cite it by providing page numbers.

I thought it was good and flowed pretty well (a few parts jump around). You seem to understand all of the parts needed for the assignment, but you left a couple out (linkages, implications, audience, publication-date). You use good supporting evidence from the article, but remember to provide page numbers to provide credibility and cite it. As for length, I think it's fine where it is, but I'm sure if you make any additions it will be longer:) Overall, I think it's good and if you add the few things the assignment requires it'll really add to the strength of it. Also, for the assignment, the professor said to use explicit terminology when explaining the article. This should also help with flow!

Alex- Your flow seemed pretty good, in some paragraphs you addressed more than one thing so it seemed to skip around but they seemed to go together.
Your writing was very good, I didn't get lost and it was very easy to follow.
You addressed everything except who the intended audience was, this is very important because it will help show why he wrote the way he did.
You provided everything that was needed but you should add some linkages he had in the text.
You provided quite a bit of evidence from the text to back up your analysis
This was a very good analysis, it was very easy to follow. It did jump around in some parts but it all worked out. It showed his point very well.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License