Rhetorical Analysis Peer Review Sheet

Answer all of the numbered prompts with questions below while reading your partner’s paper.
Every prompt must have responses and be answered in complete sentences. The minimum total
word count for your responses is 300 words. If you are short of the word count or do not
answer all of the questions, you will receive a reduced grade for this assignment. This
document is 965 words with the questions and the directions, so the final word count should be a
minimum of 1265 when you submit the assignment to get credit.
The peer review sheet is worth 20 points, completed--all prompts have to be answered to get
credit. Make sure you have the minimum word count and answer every prompt in complete
sentences. Be sure to set your answers off in a different color, highlight, underline, italicize,
etc. if you choose to write the answers directly underneath the prompt. If they are not set off
clearly, I will not grade the assignment.

1. Is there an introduction that describes the paper topic (the reading chosen)? Are
there any major elements missing? Make suggestions on how to improve the
introduction and discuss things about it that is effective.
You introduced the topic very well! I think you did a great job at summarizing the main
points of your paper! The only thing I would add is mabe a more attention grabbing hook.

2. Does this draft make a significant claim about the author’s intentions or
rhetorical strategies? Does the thesis make a statement about what the author is
trying to do in this writing, how he or she goes about it, or how well he or she
succeeds? Restate the writer’s thesis statement in your own words. If you cannot
identify the thesis, comment on that. If you have an idea for improving the
thesis, suggest that.
You did a great job analyzing the author's intentions and stating your opinion on them. If
I had to restate your thesis statement I might say, “The Federalist Papers gave an excellent
critique of what could be improved upon in the The Articles of Confederation, and they
were a great starting point for the U.S. constitution.” But I don't see any issues with your
thesis statement it’s very well said and sums up the paper concisely.

3. What specific linguistic and rhetorical elements—such as word choice, style,

structure, imagery, evidence, authorial credibility, intended audience—does your
classmate identify and discuss? Does this draft address what may be appropriate
or inappropriate ways to address the apparent audience for this core reading?
Does the draft address ethical, emotional, or logical intentions that the author of
 the core reading might have had? Does it point out what works or doesn’t work
in addressing those intentions?
The intended audience is very clearly identified as the American people and the writing style and
structure that were used to make it understandable for the common American were explained
very well. I also think you did a good job addressing the logical and emotional stand points of
the original author as well as the purpose of the work really showing why it was important.

4. Does this draft provide examples, details, illustrations, or ideas that really
support the main claim? Comment on the effectiveness of the rhetorical
elements selected for the point that your classmate wishes to make. If you have
ideas for other types of rhetorical strategies that your classmate should consider,
suggest those.
This draft provides many pieces of evidence throughout the core text that support the main claim,
such as pointing out wording used by the original author and noting logic used by Alexander
Hamiltion to prove his point. The rhetorical strategies utilized, such as explaining the purpose of
these articles to be ultimately for the American public and foundational to the forming of the U.S
constitution.

5. Does the organization of the draft make it easier to read or does it make it more
confusing? Does it draw the reader into the project? Does the writer use
transitions between ideas and paragraphs? How so? Any suggestions for
improvement? What works well? Name any good transitional words and phrases
and places that need them here.
The organization of this made it flow nicely, and transitional phrases were switched up as not to
be repetitive, which I appreciated. This was an interesting commentary on Alexander Hamiltion’s
purpose in writing this and gave context for a lot of the confusing elements of the original text.

6. Analyze the writing style used in the draft. Is the writing generally clear and
readable? Are there passages that are confusing, awkward, or difficult to follow?
Does the writer’s voice come through clearly and effectively? How well has the
writer written appropriately and effectively for a general audience of academic
peers? List any confusing or unclear words and phrases here.
This was written very well, and the writing style is easy to follow. There was a bit at the end of
the first paragraph I thought could use a bit more explaining “ because of how words are written
and the title of the series”. Maybe explain what about the way the words are written and the title
of the series shows bias.
 7. Does the writer use at least ten quotes (words, phrases, or full sentences) from
the core reading to support his/her points? Is the quoted material integrated well
into the writer’s paragraphs and adequately explained? Do the selected quotes
make sense and help to illustrate the writer’s points? Are there other quotes you
would suggest the writer consider using instead?
The quotes selected did well to back up your opinions on the original author’s work and were
integrated very well.

8. To the best of your knowledge, are the in-text citations and the Works Cited list
at the end of the draft correct? If you suspect a problem with either in-text
citations or the Works Cited list at the end, let the writer know, and suggest
corrections. Is it clear to you in the body of this writing where various details,
ideas, facts, or images come from? Is at least one source from a virtual library
database?
I didn’t notice any mistakes on the in-text citations, and on the works cited list everything seems
to be formatted correctly.

9. Identify the outside source that your classmate has used in supporting and
developing his/her ideas. Can you determine what kind of source this outside
source is (book review, scholarly article, short story, newspaper article,
biography or memoir, or something else?). Is the outside source used effectively
to provide useful background information or helpful comparison & contrast to
the core reading (or some other purpose)? Or does the outside source seem
tacked on? Discuss what the outside source adds to the discussion. If you feel
there is better way to use the outside source, or another type of source that
would help support your classmate’s claims better, make a suggestion.
Your outside source was well used throughout the paper. I believe these were periodical sources,
although some may be legal documents. I did have some trouble understanding which is the
main source and which is the outside source.

10. Does the conclusion adequately sum up the project? Does it emphasize the writer’s
main ideas and leave readers with a lasting impression? Does the writer use
 appropriate academic formatting? Any suggestions to improve organization?
What works well?
The conclusion wrapped up the paper nicely. Maybe you could discuss in the conclusion why you
think people should continue to research this topic and also why it’s important for people today
to educate themselves on today. A suggestion would be that it's important for Americans to learn
about the history that shaped our country to move into the future with a better appreciation for
these articles that provided a foundation for the way we live.

11. You may comment on organization, audience awareness, or any other issue that
could help make this draft clearer and more effective for its intended audience.
If anything is still confusing in the draft, suggest how the writer might address
the confusion. Think about what you would do if it were your job to take over
and complete this draft now without changing purpose, topic, or audience. Be as
concrete and specific as possible.
This paper was well organized and effective. As someone who has not done much research on
this topic, it was well explained and easy to understand. The tone is very professional and is
consistent throughout the work.

12. Be sure to check the paper for editing features such as MLA, grammar, and
punctuation. Note any items that need attention here (i.e. check for
capitalization, proper punctuation, wrong words, commas, write out
contractions, no second person “you,” whole numbers 1-100, write them out,
etc.). Write the editing that needs attention here. You may also choose to edit the
paper itself. If you do, make note of it here and make sure you attach it to your
partner’s original post.
The only grammatical error I noticed was a comma here and there. Your MLA formatting seems
to be perfect. The word danger is capitalized in the fifth paragraph, and in the second to last I
noticed you used knows when I think you meant know. But besides that, it all seems up to par.