Linguistic Final (Partially Complete)

FEEDBACK TEMPLATE REPORT

PART 1: Content on plan for intervention (2 points)

 Strengths:

· Drew on the some good statistics to support their claims (especially about social media)

· Policy Change is the strongest section since it references the most specifics

· Love the hashtag idea!

· Great introduction, but some more data on the issue would be helpful

· Very clear on the issue being addressed

· Love the pamphlet at the end.

 Areas for improvement

· Most of the section one content talks about why social media is useful. I would love to see more writing about the actual content of the social media campaign. This way the reader gets a better grasp of it

· The direct action section feels a bit bland. Find some organizations to partner with that will help do direct advocacy on this issue.

· All the sections need just a bit more detail in order to make them unique. What exact policies are being changed about the Fair Housing Act? What will the social media campaign say exactly? This will just make the content seem more sturdy and well thought out.

PART 2: Style / Writing (2 points)

 Strengths:

· Very clear and concise language.

· Good job with citing

· Not a lot of fluff. Good content

 Areas for improvement

· Some of the sections could have been a tad longer, this would have helped clarify some of the details that would make your paper and interventions stronger

PART 3: Overall assessment (1 point)

Overall, this is a good paper. Great ideas and the interventions are well throughout. It just requires a bit more fine turning to polish and make it perfect!

Suggested peer-review questions for discussing draft interventions

PART 1: Content on plan for intervention

 Is it obvious / clear / explicit what exactly the author is proposing to do in their intervention, or does the reader have to do the guesswork to figure the plan out?  Is the proposed intervention narrowly defined and specific, or is it broad, vague and or/missing key details?

o How can it be made more specific?

 Are there desired outcomes of the intervention clearly stated? Are they realistic? (e.g. not “this project will end anti-Black racism among all court transcribers in the USA”, but “this project would train LA County court transcribers to accurately identify these 10

linguistic features of AAL, differentiate from “Standard English” features, and transcribe them”

 Does the proposal discuss a timeframe for the intervention? Is it realistic?  What resources does the author identify as necessary for their proposal? o Can you think of any additional resources?

 What issues or roadblocks do you foresee possibly arising with this proposed intervention?

o How could the author revise their intervention to address these caveats?  If the author decided to work with a particular organization, does it make sense why they chose this group? How well does their proposed intervention build on that community’s existing work?

 If social media material is presented, are these appropriate? If not, what would you change?

PART 2: Style / Writing

 Are there any sections in which the ordering of paragraphs or arguments is awkward stilted, or the proposal jumps around from one idea to another without transitions? Are there sections in which are written in long paragraphs with not clear main idea? o If so, how can those be smoothed out?

 Are the connections between the writer’s points and their evidence clearly articulated? Is the information dropped in the paper without clear explanation or relevance?

PART 3: Overall assessment

 Do you, as a reader, feel convinced that this intervention is important and feasible after reading it?

If so, what is it persuasive? If not, how can it be made more convincing