SWoRD Review Form 7

ObscurelyYours's  A Victorian Response to Hinduism in Anna Sewell’s Black Beauty

BEFORE you review, read your peer writing carefully with reference to the criteria given in this form. 50% of your reviewing grades are from your authors who will receive your feedback. She or he will decide how helpful your feedback was/would be in revising their writing.
WHILE you review,there are two very important parts to giving good feedback. First, give very specific comments rather than vague comments: Point to exact page numbers and paragraphs that were problematic; give examples of general problems that you found; be clear about what exactly the problem was; explain why it was a problem, etc. Second, make your comments helpful. The goal is not to punish the writer for making mistakes. Instead your goal is to help the writer improve his or her paper. You should point out problems where they occur. But don't stop there. Explain why they are problems and give some clear advice on how to fix the problems. Also keep your tone professional. No personal attacks. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone can improve writing.
AFTER you submit your review, click on the SUBMIT button.

1. Focus

Does the writer establish and maintain a clear purpose that is appropriate for the intended reader and topic? Does the author explicitly state his/her objective or thesis about a specific topic near the beginning of the paper? Does the writer provide information and details that are important to the topic and relevant to the focus? Does the author cite literature relevant to the thesis? Does the conclusion summarize findings from the literature and provide insight in relation to the objective of the paper?

First summarize what you perceived as the thesis so that the writer can see whether readers can discern the controlling point of the paper. Then make specific comments about what trouble you had in understanding the focus of the paper. Be sure to give specific advice for how to make the focus more effective and praise-oriented comments about strengths that made the writing good.

The thesis is: "In Sewell’s Black Beauty, we are offered a cultural melding of the principles of both Hinduism and Christianity through both the similar plights of men and horses, as well as Sewell’s insistence on Christian morals through Indian ideologies concerning the proper treatment of animals." This sentence doesn't quite make sense to me. How does Sewell insist on Christian morals THROUGH Indian ideologies? Isn't she just stating Christian morals that happen to relate to Indian ideologies? Also, I see your references to Indian ideologies throughout the paper, but where are references to Christian morals? What is your idea of "Christian morals"? I can see that your focus remains consistent, but I think the reader needs some proof of the morals that you argue for. I think the conclusion could be a little bit more elaborate. I think the paper has a good focus that would benefit greatly from some added support and evidence.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the focus of this paper?
7. Excellent	There is a sharp, distinct thesis made about a single topic, and the body of the paper is relevant to the thesis. The conclusion clearly summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.
6. Very good	There is a thesis stated about a single topic, and the body of the paper is mostly relevant to the thesis. The conclusion summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.
5. Good	There was an apparent thesis made about a single topic, and most of the body was relevant to the thesis. The conclusion addressed the thesis.
4. Average	There was a vague thesis about a topic and some evidence of the topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.
3. Poor	There was no apparent thesis but some evidence of a specific topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.
2. Very poor	There was no apparent thesis and minimal evidence of a specific topic.
1. Disastrous	There was no apparent thesis and no evidence of a topic.

2. Organization

Is the organization of the paper clear through use of headings and subheadings? Is a logical order of sequence maintained? Is the order developed and sustained within and across paragraphs using transitional devices and including introduction and conclusion? Do paragraphs deal with one subject? Is the introduction inviting? Is the conclusion satisfying?

Comment on the organization of this paper. Describe how the paper is organized and explain whether you find the organization helps develop the thesis. Give suggestions for ways to improve the organization.

The paper is well-organized with effective pictures. I think there could be a better use of transitions, however, since I feel like everything was a little disconnected. There isn't a separate conclusion, so each paragraph doesn't deal with only one subject, but overall each paragraph has its own focus.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the organization of this paper?
7. Excellent	Sophisticated arrangement of content with evident and/or subtle transitions.
6. Very good	Effective arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with evidence of transitions.
5. Good	Functional arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with some evidence of transitions.
4. Average	Consistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
3. Poor	Confused or inconsistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
2. Very poor	Minimal control of content arrangement without attempts at transitions.
1. Disastrous	No apparent content arrangement and no attempt at transitions.

3. Flow

Is there a smooth flow within sentences and between paragraphs? Is the writing style clear and direct? Does the author avoid the passive voice? Is every sentence important and to the point instead of using a lot of fluffy language that doesn’t add information? Does the author use language that is clear to the audience?

Provide specific comments about the flow of the paper. If the writing style is not clear and direct, give specific comments to help the author understand the weaknesses. If you point out a weakness, provide specific suggestions for improving the weakness.

Here are some points of proofreading that need to be addressed:

First and fourth paragraphs, "RSCPA"

Last sentence of second paragraph, "must both coexist"

First sentence of third paragraph, "Similarly, Sewell uses Black Beauty’s own observations draw attention to the tantamount nature of men and animals."

Seventh paragraph, "The fact that they are worthy of being raised in a manner comparable to that of a young Christian, however, works to suggest that they deserving of every right that any Christian man has."

The writing is fairly clear and direct, but the third paragraph is rather redundant with the repeated use of the word "frothy". I think everything is pretty smooth, but you may want to make sure you weren't redundant in other parts of the essay as well.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the flow of this paper?
7. Excellent	Excellent flow with clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.
6. Very good	Very good flow with mostly clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.
5. Good	Good flow with satisfactory language and many transitions between sections.
4. Average	Sufficient flow with satisfactory language and some transitions between sections.
3. Poor	Limited flow with some indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and only a few transitions between sections.
2. Very poor	Poor flow with many indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections.
1. Disastrous	Very poor flow consisting mainly of indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections. Very difficult to understand what is being said.

Top of Form

SWoRD Review Form 7

Peter Pan's  Title Pending...

BEFORE you review, read your peer writing carefully with reference to the criteria given in this form. 50% of your reviewing grades are from your authors who will receive your feedback. She or he will decide how helpful your feedback was/would be in revising their writing.
WHILE you review,there are two very important parts to giving good feedback. First, give very specific comments rather than vague comments: Point to exact page numbers and paragraphs that were problematic; give examples of general problems that you found; be clear about what exactly the problem was; explain why it was a problem, etc. Second, make your comments helpful. The goal is not to punish the writer for making mistakes. Instead your goal is to help the writer improve his or her paper. You should point out problems where they occur. But don't stop there. Explain why they are problems and give some clear advice on how to fix the problems. Also keep your tone professional. No personal attacks. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone can improve writing.
AFTER you submit your review, click on the SUBMIT button.

1. Focus

Does the writer establish and maintain a clear purpose that is appropriate for the intended reader and topic? Does the author explicitly state his/her objective or thesis about a specific topic near the beginning of the paper? Does the writer provide information and details that are important to the topic and relevant to the focus? Does the author cite literature relevant to the thesis? Does the conclusion summarize findings from the literature and provide insight in relation to the objective of the paper?

First summarize what you perceived as the thesis so that the writer can see whether readers can discern the controlling point of the paper. Then make specific comments about what trouble you had in understanding the focus of the paper. Be sure to give specific advice for how to make the focus more effective and praise-oriented comments about strengths that made the writing good.

The thesis appears to be: "He had, “goals that [were] more holistic,” and concerned himself with “many aspects of [his] life rather than just [his] work,”2 and was a great example of a visionary leader." The paper was focused on Barrie, but I feel like there should have been more focus on his literature and its relation to his life. The addition of the references to animals was pretty good, but I felt like it was still a bit of a stretch.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the focus of this paper?
7. Excellent	There is a sharp, distinct thesis made about a single topic, and the body of the paper is relevant to the thesis. The conclusion clearly summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.
6. Very good	There is a thesis stated about a single topic, and the body of the paper is mostly relevant to the thesis. The conclusion summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.
5. Good	There was an apparent thesis made about a single topic, and most of the body was relevant to the thesis. The conclusion addressed the thesis.
4. Average	There was a vague thesis about a topic and some evidence of the topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.
3. Poor	There was no apparent thesis but some evidence of a specific topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.
2. Very poor	There was no apparent thesis and minimal evidence of a specific topic.
1. Disastrous	There was no apparent thesis and no evidence of a topic.

2. Organization

Is the organization of the paper clear through use of headings and subheadings? Is a logical order of sequence maintained? Is the order developed and sustained within and across paragraphs using transitional devices and including introduction and conclusion? Do paragraphs deal with one subject? Is the introduction inviting? Is the conclusion satisfying?

Comment on the organization of this paper. Describe how the paper is organized and explain whether you find the organization helps develop the thesis. Give suggestions for ways to improve the organization.

None of the pictures work, as you probably know. There also aren't captions for all of them. You could use a few more transitions as well as fewer paragraphs. I do feel that the conclusion was satisfying and related very well to the statements about Barrie's leadership in the introduction.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the organization of this paper?
7. Excellent	Sophisticated arrangement of content with evident and/or subtle transitions.
6. Very good	Effective arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with evidence of transitions.
5. Good	Functional arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with some evidence of transitions.
4. Average	Consistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
3. Poor	Confused or inconsistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
2. Very poor	Minimal control of content arrangement without attempts at transitions.
1. Disastrous	No apparent content arrangement and no attempt at transitions.

3. Flow

Is there a smooth flow within sentences and between paragraphs? Is the writing style clear and direct? Does the author avoid the passive voice? Is every sentence important and to the point instead of using a lot of fluffy language that doesn’t add information? Does the author use language that is clear to the audience?

Provide specific comments about the flow of the paper. If the writing style is not clear and direct, give specific comments to help the author understand the weaknesses. If you point out a weakness, provide specific suggestions for improving the weakness.

Some things to be proofread:

Paragraph 2: "He wove his life together with fantasy for a reason and we should respect that."

Paragraph 6: "In many cases this meat silly things like standing on his head and he even kept a count of the number of times he made her laugh in a little notebook."

The writing is clear and direct, but I think the flow could be a bit smoother. I felt like the numerous paragraphs were choppy and tended to distract and lose my attention to what you were saying. Make sure your ideas are linked with each other as well as the conclusion.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the flow of this paper?
7. Excellent	Excellent flow with clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.
6. Very good	Very good flow with mostly clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.
5. Good	Good flow with satisfactory language and many transitions between sections.
4. Average	Sufficient flow with satisfactory language and some transitions between sections.
3. Poor	Limited flow with some indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and only a few transitions between sections.
2. Very poor	Poor flow with many indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections.
1. Disastrous	Very poor flow consisting mainly of indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections. Very difficult to understand what is being said.

SWoRD Review Form 7

plangdale's  Rudyard Kipling and the Victorian Attitude Towards Animals

BEFORE you review, read your peer writing carefully with reference to the criteria given in this form. 50% of your reviewing grades are from your authors who will receive your feedback. She or he will decide how helpful your feedback was/would be in revising their writing.
WHILE you review,there are two very important parts to giving good feedback. First, give very specific comments rather than vague comments: Point to exact page numbers and paragraphs that were problematic; give examples of general problems that you found; be clear about what exactly the problem was; explain why it was a problem, etc. Second, make your comments helpful. The goal is not to punish the writer for making mistakes. Instead your goal is to help the writer improve his or her paper. You should point out problems where they occur. But don't stop there. Explain why they are problems and give some clear advice on how to fix the problems. Also keep your tone professional. No personal attacks. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone can improve writing.
AFTER you submit your review, click on the SUBMIT button.

1. Focus

Does the writer establish and maintain a clear purpose that is appropriate for the intended reader and topic? Does the author explicitly state his/her objective or thesis about a specific topic near the beginning of the paper? Does the writer provide information and details that are important to the topic and relevant to the focus? Does the author cite literature relevant to the thesis? Does the conclusion summarize findings from the literature and provide insight in relation to the objective of the paper?

First summarize what you perceived as the thesis so that the writer can see whether readers can discern the controlling point of the paper. Then make specific comments about what trouble you had in understanding the focus of the paper. Be sure to give specific advice for how to make the focus more effective and praise-oriented comments about strengths that made the writing good.

This appears to be the thesis, "Altogether, when viewing the individual authors? works as a whole one can almost certainly imply that the social implications of this time period resulted in an unparalleled compassion and understanding towards animals that laid the framework for the current prevailing attitude towards animals present in society today." This paper has a good focus. Each paragraph is related to the thesis. You mention Darwin in your first paragraph, but don’t elaborate any further on him. You may wish to since Darwin can provide good non-fictional evidence to support your points. Try to find specific quotes from him that illustrate what you are saying.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the focus of this paper?
7. Excellent	There is a sharp, distinct thesis made about a single topic, and the body of the paper is relevant to the thesis. The conclusion clearly summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.
6. Very good	There is a thesis stated about a single topic, and the body of the paper is mostly relevant to the thesis. The conclusion summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.
5. Good	There was an apparent thesis made about a single topic, and most of the body was relevant to the thesis. The conclusion addressed the thesis.
4. Average	There was a vague thesis about a topic and some evidence of the topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.
3. Poor	There was no apparent thesis but some evidence of a specific topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.
2. Very poor	There was no apparent thesis and minimal evidence of a specific topic.
1. Disastrous	There was no apparent thesis and no evidence of a topic.

2. Organization

Is the organization of the paper clear through use of headings and subheadings? Is a logical order of sequence maintained? Is the order developed and sustained within and across paragraphs using transitional devices and including introduction and conclusion? Do paragraphs deal with one subject? Is the introduction inviting? Is the conclusion satisfying?

Comment on the organization of this paper. Describe how the paper is organized and explain whether you find the organization helps develop the thesis. Give suggestions for ways to improve the organization.

This paper is well-organized. Again, use of support from Darwin would further help your organization and provide background. Also, make the conclusion tie in a little bit more with your thesis and introduction. The Biblical points are interesting; contrast them with Darwin in the first paragraph, or introduce these ideas then to entice the reader to look for more references later on (like the ones that appear in your conclusion). You may want to add more transitions, but overall I think that your paragraph structure works very well.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the organization of this paper?
7. Excellent	Sophisticated arrangement of content with evident and/or subtle transitions.
6. Very good	Effective arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with evidence of transitions.
5. Good	Functional arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with some evidence of transitions.
4. Average	Consistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
3. Poor	Confused or inconsistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
2. Very poor	Minimal control of content arrangement without attempts at transitions.
1. Disastrous	No apparent content arrangement and no attempt at transitions.

3. Flow

Is there a smooth flow within sentences and between paragraphs? Is the writing style clear and direct? Does the author avoid the passive voice? Is every sentence important and to the point instead of using a lot of fluffy language that doesn’t add information? Does the author use language that is clear to the audience?

Provide specific comments about the flow of the paper. If the writing style is not clear and direct, give specific comments to help the author understand the weaknesses. If you point out a weakness, provide specific suggestions for improving the weakness.

It appears that there are some question marks in the sentence before your image of the RSPCA where there should be quotation marks, as well as throughout the paper where there should be apostrophes.

Consider revising these sentences:

Paragraph 2: "By doing this, Carroll establishes the ability of animals to retain knowledge and understanding of the world around it."

Paragraph 4: In the Biblical story of creation the snake is forced to crawl on its belly, but not because of its own actions but because of the actions of something controlling it." The punctuation doesn't hinder your writing, but the random question marks do. I know you know this is some sort of formatting error.

You use a lot of quotes that are good, but I think you could elaborate and throw some more of your ideas into the essay. Elaborate on how the idea of humanization affects older readers, not just children. You might discuss the characteristics of what it means to be human, or what humanization means to you, then use your quotes to support these ideas. The writing is clear and direct, but could be more relevant to the reader with a little bit of elaboration.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the flow of this paper?
7. Excellent	Excellent flow with clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.
6. Very good	Very good flow with mostly clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.
5. Good	Good flow with satisfactory language and many transitions between sections.
4. Average	Sufficient flow with satisfactory language and some transitions between sections.
3. Poor	Limited flow with some indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and only a few transitions between sections.
2. Very poor	Poor flow with many indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections.
1. Disastrous	Very poor flow consisting mainly of indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections. Very difficult to understand what is being said.

Top of Form

SWoRD Review Form 7

postalservice's  Jude the Obscure: An Effective Social Commentary

BEFORE you review, read your peer writing carefully with reference to the criteria given in this form. 50% of your reviewing grades are from your authors who will receive your feedback. She or he will decide how helpful your feedback was/would be in revising their writing.
WHILE you review,there are two very important parts to giving good feedback. First, give very specific comments rather than vague comments: Point to exact page numbers and paragraphs that were problematic; give examples of general problems that you found; be clear about what exactly the problem was; explain why it was a problem, etc. Second, make your comments helpful. The goal is not to punish the writer for making mistakes. Instead your goal is to help the writer improve his or her paper. You should point out problems where they occur. But don't stop there. Explain why they are problems and give some clear advice on how to fix the problems. Also keep your tone professional. No personal attacks. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone can improve writing.
AFTER you submit your review, click on the SUBMIT button.

1. Focus

Does the writer establish and maintain a clear purpose that is appropriate for the intended reader and topic? Does the author explicitly state his/her objective or thesis about a specific topic near the beginning of the paper? Does the writer provide information and details that are important to the topic and relevant to the focus? Does the author cite literature relevant to the thesis? Does the conclusion summarize findings from the literature and provide insight in relation to the objective of the paper?

First summarize what you perceived as the thesis so that the writer can see whether readers can discern the controlling point of the paper. Then make specific comments about what trouble you had in understanding the focus of the paper. Be sure to give specific advice for how to make the focus more effective and praise-oriented comments about strengths that made the writing good.

The thesis appears to be: "Throughout the novel, Thomas Hardy effectively comments on several issues facing Victorian society—the unequal distribution of wealth, the oppression of the class system, the power of religion and the harsh treatment of animals." I think the thesis is sound, but the last section related to the harsh treatment of animals doesn't tie in well with the rest of the paper.

In addition, the conclusion didn't include section about animal treatment.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the focus of this paper?
7. Excellent	There is a sharp, distinct thesis made about a single topic, and the body of the paper is relevant to the thesis. The conclusion clearly summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.
6. Very good	There is a thesis stated about a single topic, and the body of the paper is mostly relevant to the thesis. The conclusion summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.
5. Good	There was an apparent thesis made about a single topic, and most of the body was relevant to the thesis. The conclusion addressed the thesis.
4. Average	There was a vague thesis about a topic and some evidence of the topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.
3. Poor	There was no apparent thesis but some evidence of a specific topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.
2. Very poor	There was no apparent thesis and minimal evidence of a specific topic.
1. Disastrous	There was no apparent thesis and no evidence of a topic.

2. Organization

Is the organization of the paper clear through use of headings and subheadings? Is a logical order of sequence maintained? Is the order developed and sustained within and across paragraphs using transitional devices and including introduction and conclusion? Do paragraphs deal with one subject? Is the introduction inviting? Is the conclusion satisfying?

Comment on the organization of this paper. Describe how the paper is organized and explain whether you find the organization helps develop the thesis. Give suggestions for ways to improve the organization.

The organization is clear and well-sequenced. I think there could be a better transition between the main part of the paper and the section about animal treatment. The man with a broom picture is a bit of a stretch. I think a different picture would be more effective in tying in your thoughts about Jude's emotional responses in his life.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the organization of this paper?
7. Excellent	Sophisticated arrangement of content with evident and/or subtle transitions.
6. Very good	Effective arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with evidence of transitions.
5. Good	Functional arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with some evidence of transitions.
4. Average	Consistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
3. Poor	Confused or inconsistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
2. Very poor	Minimal control of content arrangement without attempts at transitions.
1. Disastrous	No apparent content arrangement and no attempt at transitions.

3. Flow

Is there a smooth flow within sentences and between paragraphs? Is the writing style clear and direct? Does the author avoid the passive voice? Is every sentence important and to the point instead of using a lot of fluffy language that doesn’t add information? Does the author use language that is clear to the audience?

Provide specific comments about the flow of the paper. If the writing style is not clear and direct, give specific comments to help the author understand the weaknesses. If you point out a weakness, provide specific suggestions for improving the weakness.

Paragraph 1: "By they way Hardy portrays Jude’s life, he challenges Victorians to question the life they lead, and realize how they are being controlled by other people and institutions."

Paragraph 5: "One instance where Hardy uses a biblical metaphor occurs when Jude and his first wife Arabella are looking at a picture of Sampson and Delilah. [6] In the Bible Delilah betrays Sampson, her lover, by getting him drunk and turning him over to his enemies." Look at the spelling of Samson. I think it may not have a "p".

Paragraph 7: "But, once he finds her it quickly becomes evident."

Paragraph 10: "Jude recognizes that the birds only seek to satisfy an innate desire that both animals and humans share; the need for food." Colon instead of semicolon? The writing style is clear and direct but is a little bit fluffy at times. There is also a lot of plot summary throughout the paper which minimizes the power of the points that you make.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the flow of this paper?
7. Excellent	Excellent flow with clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.
6. Very good	Very good flow with mostly clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.
5. Good	Good flow with satisfactory language and many transitions between sections.
4. Average	Sufficient flow with satisfactory language and some transitions between sections.
3. Poor	Limited flow with some indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and only a few transitions between sections.
2. Very poor	Poor flow with many indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections.
1. Disastrous	Very poor flow consisting mainly of indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections. Very difficult to understand what is being said.

Top of Form

SWoRD Review Form 7

mhv89's