ENGL 120 University of California San Diego Creation of Monsters Discussion

Directions:

By Friday, post your rough draft of Essay 3. By Saturday morning, I will have posted a list of Peer Review partners. Find your name and your partner on the list and download/open their draft. Remember if you need extra time, contact me, so I know to pair you up with a peer who is also working with an extension.

Peer Review Questions

1. Does the author present the issue in his or her introduction? Is the hook effective? Is the background information (introducing the topic of monsters as well as which monsters they have chosen)?
2. Is the argument in the thesis clear? Why or why not? Does the writer make it clear whether they agree or disagree with Cohen?
3. Does the writer include a lit review as their first body paragraph to introduce to Cohen? Is this lit review effective in introducing the audience to the anchor source(s) and provide sufficient rhetorical analysis about the source?
4. Does the writer give specific examples from the text to support their claims? Are there at least two examples per body paragraph? (I in PIE)
5. Does the writer explain these specific examples, the importance or significance of these examples, and tie back into the Point and the Thesis? (E in PIE)
6. Are all examples from the sources cited properly with in-text citation? Is the paper formatted in MLA style? Is there a works cited page in the end? (I in PIE)
7. Does the author include at least three outside sources throughout their paper? Are these sources used effectively? (This does not include Cohen.)
8. Does the writer introduce each new source as it appears in the text? Do they introduce the source sufficiently, so you know what the source is, who created it, and why it’s important aspect of research?
9. Does the writer describe each monster vividly and specifically, so even if you are unfamiliar with the monster, you have a clear picture in your mind of what it is and looks like?
10. Does the writer’s organizational strategy make sense?
11. Does the writer have a conclusion that restates the thesis, summarizes key points, and gives a final thought?
12. Are there any obvious/distracting grammatical or structural errors?
13. What is this paper’s greatest strength? What still needs work, and how would you suggest the writer revise to correct that problem?