Peer Review Questions for MPP

1. The first section is face-to-face interaction: take the cover letter bullet points as a way to talk through what you want to accomplish in this project; what are your goals and how well do you think you accomplish these goals through your writing?

2. The second section is written analysis of audience, genre, and publication.

a. Audience: (1) Who are potential audiences for this issue (consider the types on page 296); (2) Has my peer effectively addressed audience interests, needs, and understanding? (3) Who do you think would find these discussions most salient?

b. Genre and Publication: (1) Describe how you think the genre (e.g., brochure, speech, magazine article, grant proposal) and publication venue (e.g., Seattle Times, Ms. Magazine, New Yorker) chosen for the message will work or not work for the intended audience.

3.The third section works with the structure of your argument and use of appeals.

a.Definition of issue: Has my peer effectively defined and framed the issue? (2) Is the summary adequate to understand the issue, leading to your persuasive intent? Is the summary balanced in relation to the stated thesis—objectives for the paper?

b. Line of Reasoning and use of appeals: Has my peer effectively described and analyzed(1) his/her line of reasoning on the problem, (2) his/her line of reasoning on the solution, (3) his/her use of concessions and rebuttals (what arguments are anticipated), and (4) his/her appeals to certain values and emotions? (5) How does my peer establish credibility—situated and invented credibility--using “voice” through first, second, or third person narrative?

4. Section four: aesthetic impact and ethics

a. How is language used to provide vivid detail for an issue, form common ground with the audience, and guide understanding?
b. How are visual (and/or auditory) imagery used to evoke tone, set a mood, and create lived connections with issue? Is there balance between verbal and visual in overall message?

c. General - Analysis
Has my peer offered sufficient analysis throughout her/his essay? Are there places where my peer offers way too much summary or way too little analysis?

d. General - Clarity
Has my peer described the original argument effectively enough so that readers unfamiliar with the argument can understand it? If not, what seems missing or unclear?

e. General - Structure
Is my peer’s essay well structured? If not, how might it more clearly and logically be organized?