Visual Argument Assignment: Peer Review Form

Visual Argument Assignment: Peer Review Name of paper author:_____________________________ Name of Peer reviewer: _____________________________ Paper title: ______________________________________________________

1. The title. Did the title catch your attention? Is it interesting, informative, and indicative of the writer’s stance? 2. Introduction: strategies. Does the introduction make you want to keep reading? Why or why not? Did the introduction begin too generally? Too narrow? Could it be improved? If so, how? 3. Thesis. Mark the thesis of the paper with . Does the thesis make a clear and compelling argument about the use of rhetorical appeals in the visual text being examined? How so/how not? Where is it in the introduction? Is this placement an effective choice? After reading the essay, is the thesis well supported in the body of the essay with specific visual evidence? How so/how not? 4. Rhetorical Appeals. What rhetorical appeals did the author use in his or her own writing? How did the author work these appeals into his or her text? Were these choices appropriate and successful? 5. Development of Ideas. Are the main points of the paper sufficiently developed? Does the paper bring up any interesting points that you would like to see developed further? Do you find any spots where the paper goes off on a tangent or addresses peripheral/irrelevant material? Does it focus on analyzing the visual text, or does it spend too much time discussing the issue presented by the text? 6. Organization of Argument. Is the argument organized effectively? Do the ideas follow each other in a logical, understandable way? Are there any places that are confusing? 7. Paragraphing. Does the author use topic sentences? Are the paragraphs more or less cohesive -- i.e. do they focus on/develop one idea? Are any paragraphs too long or too short for easy reading? 8. Style: argument and writing. Is there unnecessary repetition of points in the argument? Does s/he vary sentence structure? Are there too many short, choppy sentences, or ones that are overly complex and need to be broken up? How do the sentences flow into one another? 9. Visual Rhetoric. Did the author include the visual text in his/her paper? Are there any aspects of the text that could be analyzed further to contribute to the impact of the argument? 10. Conclusion. Is it a successful conclusion in that it offers closure to the paper while emphasizing the main thesis strongly one last time?

Visual Argument Assignment: Peer Review (cont.) Issues from LP assignments that resurface. Do any of the following writing errors (discovered in LP assignments and discussed in class) show up in the author’s writing?

• Apostrophes (used to pluralize a word) • “Good” and “Bad” o Remember: one should avoid using “good” or “bad” in academic writing (unless, of course, one is talking about the forces of good and evil), because those words are far too general. Use specific adjectives. • Split infinitives o Remember: avoid split infinitives, which is when a word or phrase, usually an adverb or adverbial phrase, comes between the marker “to” and the bare infinitive (uninflected) form of a verb. Example: “to boldly go where no man has gone before”. • Misuse of Comma o Remember: there are several instances when one can use a comma, including (but not limited to) the following: 

After an introductory clause



Setting off an appositive in a sentence



Separating elements (“grumpy, crusty, mean, old man”)



Separating phrases that contrast (“she is old, not young”)



Comma + conjunction to separate two independent clauses

• Using prepositions at the end of a thought, whether in the middle or at the end of a sentence. • Idioms and slang • Contractions • Passive Voice • “Thing”

• “A lot” • Confuses “than” with “then” (and/or vice versa) • Numbers in academic writing • Typos • Choppy sentences