09 Nov Peer review
| Criteria | Ratings | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Formatting
Is the letter properly addressed? Proper salutation? Tone? Consistent formatting?
|
|||
|
Introduction
– Was the system properly identified and introduced? If it was not clearly explained to the intended audience, state suggest improvements.
|
|||
|
– Is there a clear and logical argument made for the system being proposed? – Was the premise/change clearly explained?
|
|||
|
– Does the letter include 3 major premises to support the position? Identify any weaknesses and suggest any improvements.
|
|||
|
Logic
– Do the premises flow logically? – Identify any absences or gaps in the logic.
|
|||
|
– Identify any Logos. – What benefits are identified? Are they appropriatly described and used?
|
|||
|
– Identify any Ethos. What expertise is shown? How is the research used to the authors advantage? Do you find the author creditable?
|
|||
|
– Identify any Pathos. Is it appropriately used? Is it necessary and benefiting the letter?
|
|||
|
Sources
– For each source, the sections paraphrased/quoted are highlighted in the pdf. – Are the sources properly cited, 10 years young, and scholarly reviewed? If not, specify which sources need to be changed.
|
|||
|
– Is each point supported by at least two academic/peer reviewed research?
|
|||
|
Conclusion
– Are there several supporting points that lead to the author’s conclusion? Is the conclusion clear and convincing?
|
|||
|
Overall Impression
– Do you see any strong or obvious (to you) arguments for or against the author’s point of view that are not in the outline? If so, state specifically.
|
|||
|
– What changes can you suggest to make the arguments more effective?
|
|||
