Peer+evaluate+a+formal+critique

Answer the questions below, being as specific as possible. > > Does the paper's opening > > Does the writer develop a reader-centered prose that effectively addresses its target audience and, in the same breath, focuses on the subject -- not on the writer's reflections or getting reader's to take action? > > Does the writer accurately summarize the writer's work in one paragraph? > > Does the writer briefly review the key points in the author's work that the writer proposes to evaluate? > Does the writer **assess the presentation** in the body of the paper? Does the writer > > Does the paper's conclusion
 * Read the introduction (i.e., the first paragraph) and pause. Write down what you expect will be the topic, purpose, and audience of the paper.
 * Now finish reading the paper. Were your expectations for the paper's topic, purpose, and audience fulfilled? If not, what do you think the topic, purpose, and audience are in the body of the essay? If the body of the essay does not fulfill the purpose as defined by the introduction, is the problem more with the introduction (because it does not reflect a new and better direction in the draft) or with the body (because it wanders)?
 * Is the tone appropriate for the purpose and audience? Does the writer use language appropriate to the needs of a nonacademic audience? Identify instances where the writer
 * succeeds in writing for a nonacademic audience.
 * need to consider revising in order to meet the needs of a nonacademic audience.
 * Focus upon the introduction.
 * introduce both the passage under analysis and the author?
 * provide background material to help your readers understand the relevance or appeal of the passage?
 * state the author's main argument?
 * state the author's purpose for writing?
 * state the point(s) that you intend to make about the author's main argument?
 * state the thesis?
 * Focus upon the body of the paper.
 * introduce and/summarize a key point in more detail than the writer provided in the earlier general summary.
 * evaluate the validity of the author's presentation, as distinct from your points of agreement of disagreement?
 * comment on the author's success in achieving his or her purpose by reviewing several specific point
 * Focus upon the conclusion.
 * state your conclusions about the overall validity of the piece -- your assessment of the author's success at achieving his or her aims and your reactions to the author's views?
 * remind the reader of the weaknesses and strengths of the passage?
 * In the conclusion, does the writer **respond to the presentation**? Does the writer
 * identify which views with which you agree and disagree
 * discuss your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the author -- tying these reasons to assumptions -- both the author's and your own.
 * draw upon outside sources, where necessary, to support your ideas
 * Focus on the paper's content. What sort of evidence is used to develop or support the position take in this paper? Are there adequate details, examples, or reasons to support each of the ideas? Do readers need more information at any point to understand the meaning or appreciate the point of view?
 * Summarize the paper, devoting one sentence to each paragraph.
 * Next, numbers the paragraphs. Do the paragraphs follow a logical order? Describe how the argument does or does not flow from the first to the second, from the second to the third, and so on. Are there any logical gaps between the paragraphs?
 * Are the author's paragraph's unified, coherent, and developed? If so, note them. Also, indicate any that confuse you, and explain why.
 * What did you like best about the paper?
 * What two features of the paper most need improvement?