I need you to review the attached drafts and make suggestions to improve them, as well as answering the following questions:

  1. After submitting your draft, choose 2 peers’ draft to review.Read as many drafts as you can and choose two drafts that have not yet received any feedback to respond to in detail. NOTE: To ensure that ALL students receive feedback, it is important that you first respond to drafts that have received NO feedback yet. If you find that all drafts have received feedback, then look for a draft that has only received feedback from one person. DO NOT respond to a draft that has already received feedback from two other peers unless no other options are available. Download each draft to your computer and save them with a name that will make them easy to identify later. For example, (Amy’s draft), (Troy’s draft).
  2. Write Peer Response.For each review, respond to at least 4 of the following 5 prompts and questions, choosing questions based on which you think will be most help to each peer. Write your answers on the last page of the downloaded copies of the drafts you have selected and label each answer with the letter that corresponds with the question answered. Provide as many specifics as possible, quoting from your peers’ drafts as applicable and providing specific suggestions for improvement.

Answer these prompts/questions on the last page(s) of your peer’s essay.Save the changes you made on your peer’s draft before you reply to her/him in the discussion forum. Your reply should include the peer’s draft your reviewed. Attach the peer’s draft as a Word document when responding with your revision.

  • Did the writer include the summary and purpose statement? Is it a minimum of 150 words? Did the writer include description of the rhetorical situations in the plagiarism article? Does it clearly identify the reading being summarized? Does the summary capture the main idea(s) of plagiarism (maybe other concepts too)? Is the summary objective and fair? Is it accurate? What works best? What is missing?
  • Analyze the writer’s response to the plagiarism article. Does the writer provide a clear and distinct opinion about the ideas of the plagiarism article? Does the writer back up his or her opinions with evidence? Does the response seem accurate and consistent? What works best? What is missing?
  • Analyze the medium and form of your peer’s draft. Does the organization of the draft make it easier to read or does it make it more confusing? Is there a clear introduction with thesis, a body, and a conclusion? Does the introduction sufficiently introduce the topic and main ideas? Does it draw the reader into the project? 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? What works best? What is missing?
  • 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/tone come through clearly and effectively? How well has the writer written appropriately and effectively for a general audience of academic peers? What works best? What is missing?
  1. If you could take over this draft and make one important change or revision in the content or organization, what would you change, and why? (Note: Do not comment on grammar or formatting here but focus on content and organization.)

Criteria (Per Peer Response)


1st Peer

2nd Peer

At least 4 out of 5 questions answered, questions clearly labeled, minimum 200 words


The peer response offers tactful, honest, specific, and peer-to-peer (non-expert) advice. Response goes beyond simple agreement or disagreement. Specific suggestions for improvement are provided, and/or specific analysis of what works well is provided. Suggestions are relevant to the topic and purpose of the assignment.


15 points per peer response