Advice Given

The two peer review sessions that were conducted for our final research papers were extremely valuable and they helped me to improve upon my rough drafts. I think all four of us were able to help each other immensely and it was definitely nice to see and hear the opinions of three other people. After looking at the same material for so long it is hard to find errors, so having a few sets of fresh eyes take a look at your work is very beneficial. I believe that I was able to give some good advice and suggestions to all of my classmates, and I also took their suggestions into consideration.

When it came to Amanda’s paper, I had a few suggestions for ways that she could improve her rough draft. I felt as if her paper was lacking logical organization, and that some things were just simply out of order. Her writing was good, and there were only a few grammatical errors, but I suggested that she move some of her paragraphs around. I thought that her paper was not flowing very well, and that some of the dates were out of order so it made it difficult for the reader to follow. She also talked about the same topics in a few different places in her paper, so I suggested that she put the related information together in order to cause less confusion. There were also a few things that were worded a bit awkwardly in my opinion, but they were not necessarily wrong. Overall I thought that the content of Amanda’s paper was very good and that her paper was well-researched.

Laurie’s paper on the other hand was extremely organized and it progressed in a logical manner. I felt as if it was easy to follow because the dates were in order and like topics were grouped together. The only major things that I found were a few inconsistencies. She had commas before and after “Jr.” in some places, and in others she had a comma only after it. Some of her citations differed from the others, so I just pointed these things out to her. She also used different tenses in a few places so I made some suggestions regarding that as well. Her paper seemed thoroughly researched and it was very interesting to read.

I also had a few suggestions for Molly and her paper. I found a few general mistakes, such as typos and simple word choice. There were a few places where she used “has” instead of “have” or where she left a word out. I also mentioned that some of her paragraphs were extremely long and indicated a few places where they could be broken apart. I added a few commas as well, and found a few sentences that I thought were fragments. I found very little wrong with the content and organization in Molly’s paper, and overall I believe that it was written very well.