essay round 3 articles

Peer Review Analytic Essay 2 rough draft

Reminder: Peer Reviews count toward both your participation and attendance.

Don’t skimp on your feedback. I’m looking for a generous amount of thoughtful, critical feedback from you. Help your partner see the strengths and weaknesses of their draft.

Work through the following peer review. You will write your feedback in the right-hand margin of the comments space in Canvas. It looks like a small box but expands to accommodate all of your comments. Use corresponding numbers from the points below as you provide each answer, so your partner knows clearly what you’re referring to.

Alternatively, if you’d rather download their Word document and provide margin comments right on that: in Word, select “Review,” then highlight the sentence(s) you’re commenting on, then select “New Comment.” Attach it as a file when you’re finished.

Instructions for Peer Review

1. Introduction

· Are all three texts and authors introduced in the Writer’s Introduction? They should state that they will be analyzing Shoshana Zuboff’s “The Right to a Future Tense,” Franklin Foer’s “Mark Zuckerberg’s War on Free Will,” and Jia Tolentino’s “Always Be Optimizing.”

· Does the Writer end the introduction with a clear thesis? Do you know what the writer’s main argument of the paper will be? If the thesis is not clear, of if you can’t find a thesis, ask them what they will be arguing in their paper—tell them to state that explicitly.

2. Body paragraphs (do this for every body paragraph)

A. Remember to think of topic sentences as topic claims. The topic claim should tell you, the reader, what specific argument the Writer is making in that paragraph.

· Is the Writer’s topic sentence making an original claim about something directly related to the text? Or is it an observation? A fact? A summary? If their first or second sentence is not a claim, try to find a claim emerging somewhere else in the paragraph. You should comment on whether the sentence is simply a general observation about something, a fact, summary, or a claim.

· What do you think the Writer is trying to argue in this paragraph? Tell them what you think they are arguing. If it seems they’re going off-topic or merely summarizing, point that out to them.

B. It’s best to put a direct quotation from at least two authors in conversation within each body paragraph. Aim to put all three in conversation in at least one body paragraph.

· In one of the body paragraphs that doesn’t work with all three texts, suggest another quotation, key term, or passage from the third text that may connect productively to the quotation they’ve chosen.

· Does the Writer introduce quotations in the paragraph? If not, point that out to them.

· Is the Writer engaging with every quotation, analyzing specific words or ideas within the quotation, and using it to build their argument?

· * Not for every body paragraph, but in the paper as a whole: Choose one quotation that you think they are ignoring or not engaging fully with, and then, in a sentence or two, draw their attention to the implications of that quotation.

3. Main argument

If the writer didn’t have a clear or debatable thesis in the intro, is a main argument emerging by the end of their draft? If so, what is that main argument?

· Tell them what you think their main argument is. If there is no argument, tell them what the problem seems to be (for instance: summarizing throughout).

4. Proper Paper Format

· Look over your Peer’s formatting, and make sure they have the following. Tell them if anything is missing:

· One-inch margins

· 12-point Times New Roman font

· A proper heading

· An original, engaging title

5. What two main things do you think your Peer should focus on as they revise to

clarify and strengthen their argument, and why? Write several sentences to

explain.

1