Peer Review Guidelines
Use the following suggestions to comment on one another's writing. These guidelines generally apply to any kind of writing, in or out of college, the office, whether an essay or letter, proposal or report etc.
1) Open Response to Content: Read the document the entire way through without editing or marking on it at all. Then write a three to four sentence response to the content of the document; do not write a critical comment yet but respond directly to the author's ideas. For example, if there is something you two share in common, state what it is and respond to that by describing your similar experience. If you found something unique or interesting, respond to that; why did it interest you? In other words, respond to the document as if you have just been introduced to the author at a party; what would be your natural, polite first response to learning this information about this person?
For those of you who are shameless pragmatists and are wondering what the purpose of this portion of your response is, consider it the goodwill-building or "you-attitude" portion of your response. Even if you are only writing three sentences, you are still writing and therefore are presented with an opportunity to build goodwill with the reader, who is in this case the person who wrote the essay you are reading. When someone lets you review a document she's written, that person wants to believe you are interested in what she had to say and that you weren't simply interested in shredding her. In terms of "you-attitude," how do you feel when you share your ideas with your teacher and all he cares about are your comma splices?
Sign your name to your response.
2) Critical Response to Content: Now read it a second time, this time with pen in hand, focusing on and writing specific responses to:
a) How well the document stays on topic at all times? Mark any places the author strays off topic. Review the assignment guidelines or ask the author what he or she is trying to achieve if you aren't sure what the document was supposed to do.
b) How clearly the document is written. Mark any places that are unclear, confusing, or confusingly phrased. Offer suggestions for how to clarify these sections.
c) How well the information is developed. For example, does the author mention interesting parts of her life that you'd like to know a bit more about? Does she ramble on about irrelevant stuff?
3) Critical Response to Rhetorical Purpose: Look for the following:
a) Whether the author even remembered to clearly address the rhetorical purpose; does the document seem persuasive to you? What changes will make the document more persuasive (this is the main question for any document)?
b) Whether the author missed opportunities you see to more clearly develop goodwill with the reader.
c) Whether the author gives what seems to you a realistic but favorable impression of herself to the reader; is this a person you would want to have as a student, co-worker, co-conspirator etc?
d) Whether the author remembered to offer the instructor a bribe, and whether that bribe seems appropriate or is just insultingly small.
4) Editorial Responses to Form: Generally, it is always best to ask the author whether he or she wants you to edit the document. Even if you are not the world's greatest editor, you are still likely to catch mistakes in spelling, punctuation, clarity and usage that the reader may have overlooked. In addition to normal stuff, look for editorial things specifically related to this assignment:
a) Does the document use headings, and do those heading tell you exactly what to expect?
b) Does the document use relatively short and a variety of paragraph lengths?
c) Is the document correctly formatted as a memo, letter, essay or whatever it's supposed to be?