Peer Editing Worksheet Author: Editor: Carefully read the paper all the way through. Having read the paper now go back through with pen in hand and underline the thesis. Is it clear, that is, can you easily discern what the thesis is? Is it concise, can it be encapsulated in one or two sentences? Is it contestable, can it be argued against/is its point debatable or does it merely state the obvious? Now examine the rest of the paper more closely with this question in mind: how does the rest of the paper connect to the thesis? How does the rest of the paper support the thesis—are there ample illustrations and examples that expand the idea of the thesis? Are there places where the paper strays from or contradicts the thesis? Where does the paper do its best job of supporting the thesis? Where is it in need of the most work? Are there places where grammar and spelling errors interfere with the message the paper is attempting to communicate? Where are these? Is the tone appealing and appropriate? Is the voice of the writer appropriate to the subject matter? Is it consistent throughout? Where does it vary in an unhelpful way? What are the three strongest features of the paper? What are the three areas that are most in the need of improvement? Be specific. Peer Editing Sheet Author’s Name___________________________ Peer Editor____________________________ Yes No ___ ___ 1. Does the draft discuss the circumstances for introduction of the species into the new environment? ___ ___ 2. Does the draft discuss the response of the introduced population to its new environment? ___ ___ 3. Does the draft discuss the effects of the introduced population on the environment (including native species)? ___ ___ 4. Are there sufficient sources to demonstrate unbiased information? ___ ___ 5. Are the citations in the correct format within the text and on the Works Cited page? Now that you have responded to these questions, give the author some feedback on what you have read. List three specific parts of the paper you like. You may refer to lines. Tell what about these sections/words/sentences/phrases you like. 1. 2. 3. Give your author some suggestions for improvement. Please try to offer concrete suggestions dealing with content. 1. 2. 3. Environmental Science Mr. Lancaster Peer Editing Worksheet – 2nd Draft 2/18/2010 Editor____________________________ Period _____ Author ___________________________ Read the entire proposal before editing the parts. Format Has the author divided the proposal into the required sections of the format? Has he used subheadings? Introduction Has the author sufficiently researched the background information of this project? Is all the information cited correctly? What questions do you have? What are the strengths in the author’s description and explanation of the purpose of the project? Give details below. Give the author specific suggestions for improving the description and purpose. Who does this project benefit and how? Procedure Does the author’s timeline for his plan of action utilize the time available wisely? Point out any possible “time crunches” to the author. Are you unclear about any aspects of the data collection or of time management? Ask questions below that the author can use to clarify his procedure. Describe how the author will present his research to the public. Make suggestions as to how he might make this presentation more clear and interesting to his audience. Working Bibliography Review the author’s bibliography. Did he include the required number of sources of information? Do all these sources relate specifically to the author’s project? Has he investigated a variety of sources to get information? Advise the author on where he might look for additional information or sources of a different type. Grammar and Mechanics Review the paper for mistakes in grammar and spelling. Mark any mistakes directly on the paper, and offer specific suggestions below for rewriting any passages that are vague or confusing. Does the proposal contain all information necessary to receive a good grade on the final draft? List below what criteria you would use to grade this proposal. Assign a grade to the proposal. Explain why you graded it as you did (this will not reflect on the author’s actual grade—it is a tool for the author to use in revising his final draft).