literature review

Literature Review: Peer Edit Checklist 1) Intro and Thesis:

a) Does the intro provide enough context for the thesis, and does it establish the importance of the topic in one or both of

the two ways we’ve discussed: 1) describe the number of people affected and/or 2) describe the extent to which

they are affected?

b) Is the intro overly general or does it get right to the point? (Remember, no “dawn of man” introductions.)

c) Is the thesis clearly stated?

2) Body Paragraphs:

a) Is there a clearly identifiable topic sentence for each paragraph?

i. Does the rest of the paragraph support ONLY that topic sentence? Does it stray from that topic sentence?

b) Are the paragraphs in logical order so that one paragraph logically progresses from the one before?

c) Are there smooth transitions between paragraphs? Between sentences?

d) Is there enough evidence (specifically, empirical evidence) provided to support claims by the author? Are all claims

made adequately supported?

e) Are there multiple sources cited for each (or at least, most) point(s)? For example: (Jones, 2012; Smith & Kelly, 2009).

f ) Does the paper focus on content (rather than sources) by citing sources in parentheses at the end of the sentence rather

than in the sentence (except when citing specific studies)?

3) Paraphrases & Quotations ​(If used Quotations are used at all, they are used very sparingly!)​​:

a) Is each quotation integrated into the author's own prose? (No “free floating” quotes: Do not begin sentence w/ quote.)

b) When author tags are used, is the author repetitive in their author tags and signal phrases? (e.g., do they use “says” or

“states,” or “according to” each time?)

4) APA/Writing Style and Mechanics: a) Comment on any unclear or awkward phrases that you find. (“?” or “clarify” will help your peer id problems.) b) Diction: circle words that sound unprofessional, informal, or less academic. Underline any wordiness.

5) Conclusion: a) Is the thesis restated in a new and interesting way? (Remember to avoid verbatim restatements.) b) ​Does your conclusion make clear how the body of the review supports the assertion/proposition/thesis presented in the

Introduction? c) Have you addressed the implications of your topic? In other words, have you made suggestions as to what actions

seem promising based on the review of the research?

6) What changes would you recommend? Comment as needed throughout the paper. On Your Second Read of the Paper: 1) Circle “is” verbs (to be, is, are, being, were, was, has been, will be, will become, etc.) 2) Circle expletive constructions (There is, There are, It is) 3) Identify slow wind-ups or other instances of general wordiness (e.g., “it is because of the fact that it is...”; “Another important point to consider is...”; “Due to the fact that...” )