updated 9/12/07

wild morning glory vine connecting

the spirits at Pied Beauty ranch

see Browning's "Two in the Campagna," lines 1-30, in your anthology

‘One day when I was twenty-three or twenty-four this sentence seemed to form in my head, without my willing it, much as sentences form when we are half-asleep, ‘Hammer* your thoughts into unity’. For days I could think of nothing else and for years I tested all I did by that sentence [...]” William Butler Yeats (Nobel Prize, 1923; cited in Frank Tuohy, Yeats, 1976, p.51 )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SWORD INSTRUCTIONS

"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."

OUR THREE CRITERIA

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.
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? IS THE ORGANIZATION OF THE VISUAL AND VERBAL RHETORIC CLEAR? ARE THE PICTURES FULLY INTEGRATED INTO THE TEXT? ARE THEY DISCUSSED, OR AT LEAST REFERRED TO, IN THE TEXT? DO THEY HAVE HELPFUL CAPTIONS? ARE THEY ESSENTIAL TO THE ESSAY OR NOT? EXPLAIN TO THE WRITER YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS AND HOW THEY MIGHT IMPROVE THEIR INTEGRATION OF VERBAL AND VISUAL RHETORIC. LOOKING AT BOTH THE TEXT AND THE MULTIMEDIA CONSIDER:

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.
Based on your comments above, how would you rate the organization of this paper?

7. Excellent Sophisticated arrangement of VERBAL AND VISUAL content with evident and/or subtle transitions.
6. Very good Effective arrangement of VERBAL AND VISUAL content that sustains a logical order with evidence of transitions.
5. Good Functional arrangement of VERBAL AND VISUAL content that sustains a logical order with some evidence of transitions.
4. Average Consistent arrangement of VERBAL AND VISUAL content with or without attempts at transitions.
3. Poor Confused or inconsistent arrangement of VERBAL AND VISUAL content with or without attempts at transitions.
2. Very poor Minimal control of VERBAL AND VISUAL content arrangement without attempts at transitions.
1. Disastrous No apparent VERBAL AND VISUAL content arrangement and no attempt at transitions.

3. Flow

Did the writing flow smoothly so you could follow the main argument? Can you find the main points? Are the transitions from one point to the next harsh, or do they transition naturally? WHERE DID THE PUNCTUATION AFFECT THE FLOW? WHERE DID YOU SLOW DOWN OR STOP, HOWEVER BRIEFLY, BECAUSE OF THE PUNCTUATION, OR LACK OF PUNCTUATION?

NOW RE-READ THE ESSAY AND IMAGINE YOU ARE THE INSTRUCTOR: WHERE WOULD HE OBJECT TO THE PUNCTUATION?

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, CITING PAGE NUMEBERS FROM OUR HANDBOOK WHENEVER YOU CAN.

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the prose flow of this paper?

7. Excellent: Excellent flow with clear language, active and direct sentences, useful transitions between sections, AND PERFECT PUNCTUATION.
6. Very good: Very good flow with mostly clear language, active and direct sentences, useful transitions between sections, AND ALMOST PERFECT PUNCTUATION.
5. Good: Good flow with satisfactory language, many transitions between sections, AND GOOD BUT NOT PERFECT PUNCTUATION.
4. Average: Sufficient flow with satisfactory language, some transitions between sections, AND UNEVEN, EPISODIC PUNCTUATION.
3. Poor: Limited flow with some indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, only a few transitions between sections, AND POOR PUNCTUATION.
2. Very poor: Poor flow with many indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, no transitions between sections, AND VERY POOR PUNCTUATION.

1. Disastrous Very poor flow consisting mainly of indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, no transitions between sections, AND SO LITTLE EFFECTIVE PUNCTUATION THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW . Very difficult to understand what is being said.