PEER REVIEW FORM: Reviewing the Review

Note: Please cut and paste this whole form into a Microsoft Word document and fill out.
Bold the questions and NOT your answers, so I can distinguish your comments from the questions.
Also, please just enter the space necessary to type in your comments (I didn’t, not knowing how much space each of you would need).

Name of Peer reviewer:
Title of Review:

1. Quote or paraphrase the main argument (or opinion) of the review.

2. How could it be improved in terms of argument or writing? Where is the main argument within the body of the review ... at the beginning, middle, or end? What is or isn’t effective about that choice?

4. Introduction: strategies. Does the introduction make you want to keep reading? Why or why not?

4. Introduction & Conclusion. Think about the relationship between the introduction and conclusion. Does the conclusion work simply as a summary or a reiteration/rephrasing of the introduction? Does the author use other writing strategies in his/her conclusion? Is it a successful conclusion in that it offers closure to the review while emphasizing the main argument strongly one last time?

5. Strategies of Development. What strategies of development do you see the author using on the paragraph level or in the review as a whole? Does the author offer quotes or any other evidence to back up his/her main point? Which are the most successful?

6. Development of Ideas. Are the main points of the paper sufficiently developed? Does the review bring up any interesting points that you would like to see developed further? Do you find any spots where the review goes off on a tangent or addresses peripheral/irrelevant material?

8. Creativity: How is the author creative with his/her use of prose and style? How does the author successfully get his/her point across, while engaging the reader and being creative at the same time? Where, in the review, do you see examples of that?

9. Style I: What is the tone of the reviewer? Funny? Ironic? Sarcastic? Serious? Pendantic? Academic? Hip? Is this tone appropriate for the genre/venue being reviewed, as well as the audience assumed to be reading the review? Also, how is the point of view consistent throughout the paper? Does the author use precise, vivid language? Is there unnecessary repetition? Conversely, does the author use repetition deliberately for rhetorical effect? Is that successful? Give examples as applicable.

10. Style II. 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? Do you find any places where it seems that author deliberately has manipulated the organization of his/her sentences to enhance this sense of flow?

11. Based on what you read, would you trust the reviewer’s advice? Why or why not?

12. Free-write. Free-write general comments to the author, reflecting on the paper and your experience of reading it.