321 Peer Review Analysis2

Peer review instructions

  1. Sign into Canvas, go to Assignments, and click the Analysis2 assignment. In the Submission Details box, click the student name under Assigned Peer Reviews. Click the little preview icon next to the uploaded paper link (not the link to the paper itself). That will open Crocodoc preview.
  2. You’ll see Crocodoc tools up at the top: Magnifying glass to zoom in or out, a Comment icon to leave various sorts of comments on the page, a download icon to download this paper, and a page arrow to scroll up or down on the page.
  3. Read the paper through once very closely, using the Crocodoc tools to quickly note surface errors, make specific comments, or offer organizational tips, but don’t spend a great deal of time editing your partner’s paper. Spend the bulk of your time carefully responding to the conceptual questions inside the rubric attached to this assignment, offering very specific and concrete suggestions wherever possible.
  4. Click View Rubric to open it, and then for each entry, click View Longer Description to see the specific questions you should answer in the text box. Each time you add comments to a comment field, go to the bottom of the rubric and click SAVE. If you don’t click save before you close the rubric, you’ll lose your comments.
  5. When you are finished responding to the rubric’s questions, click Save at the bottom of the rubric.


Download a copy of your review

To be certain your work doesn’t evaporate into the ether, go to the Crocodoc toolbar at the top of your peer’s paper, and hit the download icon. Select “download the annotated pdf.” Save the file to your desktop, and email it to yourself.

To see the feedback left for you on your paper, view the assignment’s submission details. Before class next time, revise your paper and upload your final version to the same place you uploaded the peer review version. (I will see both versions.)  Prepare for figures practice quiz.


Analysis Two Rubric

Criteria Comments Pts
Introduction: Is the artifact introduced in the 1st or 2nd paragraph, along with sufficient information about the situation or occasion and a concise but thorough summary of the artifact’s purpose? If so, what’s the purpose? Is it clear? Does the author note where the artifact was published and give the full name of the artifact’s author and its title in the introduction? Is the rest of the source information and a URL in the Works Cited section at the end? Note any missing elements and offer suggestions about how to make the introduction more compelling. Comments 0.0 pts
Main Stasis and Formal Topic: Does the author both identify and carefully analyze the type of argument (stasis) that the reasons are designed to support (conjecture, definition, quality, policy, objection) AND the formal topic used in the main argument and any significant supporting arguments? If so, what are the formal topics and stases identified and analyzed, and how well are they analyzed? Comments 4.0 pts
Enthymeme: Does the author state the enthymeme of the main argument accurately, sketching out the main premise, minor premise, and conclusion? If so, sketch it here for us. If not, or if the enthymeme doesn’t quite work (isn’t true or isn’t valid), offer suggestions. Comments 3.0 pts
Ideograph: Does the author thoroughly discern and describe an ideograph operating in this artifact, the presumptions on which it functions, and what the argument wants or expects you to assume about this ideograph? If so, restate all that here. If not, or if it doesn’t work well, offer suggestions. Comments 4.0 pts
Figures: Does the author both identify the most powerful rhetorical figures at work in the artifact and analyze the work they’re doing for the artifact’s purpose? If so, what are they? If not, offer suggestions. Comments 4.0 pts
Infographic: Is the infographic readable and does it capture the main (or most persuasive) rhetorical principles operating in the argument being assessed? If if does, note its most impressive aspects. If you have questions or suggestions to make it more compelling, offer them. Comments 2.0 pts
Writing: Is the 4-5 page paper written effectively and coherently, with very few grammatical errors? Does it contain all the requisite elements, including a works cited page that accurately documents sources used? If not, offer suggestions. Comments 3.0 pts
Total Points: 20.0