Pairings (critique each other’s posted final report rough drafts): Eileen Boucher/Amy Tantillo; Michelle Merriman/Dianne Frank; Katherine Linder/Matt Hopper; Catherine Field/Melissa Hedlund; Jessi White/Tricia Peterson; Katie Lyman/Theresa Kronenburger; Danielle Harms/Michelle Dirks; Taryn Nordquist/Nick Ludes.  When you have your critique published, send an e-mail message to the person whose draft you critiqued, telling that person that your critique is published, and where it is (include the URL in your e-mail message).  E-mail addresses are available on the student web sites section of our class web site.

Publish a peer critique that includes the name of the writer whose report draft you are critiquing, and include sections in the critique that are labeled with the section titles below. You will be most helpful if you are firm and honest with your comments and suggestions. If you have a suggestion that you think will improve your classmate’s report, go ahead and include it in your posted answers to these questions—don’t worry about hurting the other person’s feelings. On the other hand, do what you can to be encouraging. Remember that this peer critique is due by noon, Friday, April 19; after that time you’ll be able to go to your partner’s assignment index to see his or her comments on your writing, and to use them to improve your report.
 

organization

Students in this course are free to organize their reports as they see fit, but they also must do so in a logical manner that is easy to follow. Describe the organizational method used by this person—is it logical and easy for readers to follow? Can you suggest any additions or ideas for organizing this report? Also, are there any particular formatting problems this person should fix before publishing a final version (missing extra spaces between paragraphs, inappropriate fonts or font sizes, etc.)?
 

introduction

Consider the introduction—does it clearly establish its topic? Is there unnecessary material? After you’ve read more of the report, go back and consider the introduction again—do you have any suggestions for a better way to begin this report?
 

description versus analysis

The requirements for this report include going beyond mere description toward analysis of its material. Look for, and then describe, places where the writer gets beneath the surface and offers some insights, revelations, or suggestions about the writer he or she has studied. Now that you’ve read the report carefully, also suggest any insights or potential insights that occur to you—are there potential areas of insight or interest that this report writer has downplayed or overlooked?
 

cited material

Describe the writer’s use of quotations. Are they integrated smoothly? Are most of them parts of the quoted writer's sentences worked into parts of the report writer's sentences?  Are the sources of the quotations adequately explained beforehand, and are the quotations adequately built upon afterward?  (for reminders on how to quote effectively, see our handout again). Suggest any changes you would make to integrate any quotations more smoothly.
 

writing style

Describe this writer’s writing style. In what ways is it particularly effective? Do you see certain kinds or patterns of mistakes? Is the writing choppy or repetitious? Do too many sentences start subject first? Would more active voice help? Do you see any particular comma errors? Finally, point out any mechanical and/or spelling errors that you notice.