Ideas: 6, 13, 15

Evidence: 5, 7, 10

Organization: 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14

Local: 2, 4

My peer review process has improved greatly since the first time we did the exercise. Referring back to my learning log, I discussed how I found it hard to do a peer review while ignoring many of the local or grammatical errors that were consistent throughout my peers’ papers. It distracted me from being able to focus on the bigger picture; the ideas, evidence, and overall organization of the essay. However, I now find it much easier to look past the local errors and am able to provide support and input on the more important parts of the paper when peer editing. In the peer review above, one can see that I have improved in this area considering there are only two local edit comments, which is the least amount for each of the four categories.

I had most of my comments focusing on organization for this particular essay. Comment number 8 shows how I evaluated organization because I discuss one of the writers pieces of evidence that seems off topic, and recommend bringing it up in a later paragraph where it would fit better. Comment number 6 shows how I evaluated ideas because I brought up an idea that the writer had discussed a few times throughout the essay; the bandwagon term. I recommended that if she was going to keep bringing it up, it would be beneficial for her to make it an overall theme of her essay and to try to incorporate it into the thesis. In comments 5, 7, and 10, I evaluated evidence because I noticed a lot of her ideas seemed to lack elaboration. I addressed that if she were to add more evidence, she would really strengthen her argument. In comments 2 and 4, I addressed local revisions. I saw that many of her sentences seemed short and choppy, and suggested that if she were to combine them or reword them, they may flow smoother and make her writing easier to comprehend.