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.

thesis: Rather than shaping our lives around a singular ideology, it is imperative we allow the vast multitude of experiences and philosophies of the entire human experience to shape, but not constrain, our own unique perspective on life, to act as a guide for both our normal routine and the perils we will inevitably face. The controlling points seem to be forming an individual ideology by learning from but not completely accepting any one point of view, to form a growing, changing opinion on life that focuses on unity rather than separateness. It could be more effective in stating more specifics about what this ideology is.

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 organized well stating a problem or frustration and a proposed solution, it could improve through the use of more examples of adopted philosophies, religions, literary references, etc.

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.

The language is eloquent, it could be improved by more varied sentence structures and more direct sentences. Can be wordy at times, conciseness could be improved upon.

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.