Derek Tomenchok's Review

Peer Review; SLA Argument

Author’s Name: Derek Tomenchok                                                        Peer Review’s Name: Aj Joslin

What is the main point, the argument? [List page # and paragraph—and then write it in your own words]

For the work of  Shelby Lee Adams

How does the argument refute potential detractors? [Please list anything the author may have missed that they need to address]

By talking about Adam’s Background of growing up in Kentucky with these people.

Introduction: Describe in your own words what the intro does, then if its effective.  Why/Why Not?  [Please be as specific as possible]

The intro works well since it discusses both sides of the argument.

Paragraph Concerns:  if there are any paragraphs with more than one main point, address whether they should be split into separate paragraphs, or if one point seems unnecessary and can be deleted.  Are there any paragraphs doing the same thing and can be combined? This is a good place to discuss overall structure, the logical series of points being made.  If the paragraph sequence could be altered for greater effectiveness, please note.

The paragraphs work well. They talk about the main ideas nicely.

Evidence:  Is each main point backed with evidence?  Has the author thoroughly explained the implications of the point being made?  Offer advice on how to back up the point (photo treatment, quotes, logic).

Yes, the author uses the documentary and the home funeral well. I’d like to see one more source to diversify the opinions in the paper.

Transitions: Does each paragraph flow well from the previous?  If there are any fuzzy transitions, please list them specifically—page #, paragraph #--and give advice on how to make the transition smoother (or moved to somewhere else in the paper).

Transitions works well between the paragraphs.

Conclusion:  Is the conclusion effective in wrapping up the argument, leaving the reader/listener well aware of the point(s) being made?  Does the author leave any loose ends (unfinished arguments begun earlier)?  Can the conclusion be strengthened?

The conclusions is strong and wraps up the paper well.

Voice/Audience:  Describe how the voice is effective in addressing this controversy, keeping in mind that there are people who will not agree with the argument.  Do you feel that the author is effective in projecting him/herself as a rationale authority who had given thought to all viewpoints?  Voice is hard to maintain throughout an entire paper.  Please list passages and word choices that hinder the success of the rationale voice, and offer advice on how to make it stronger.

The voice is strong and he defiantly addresses both sides to the argument.

Revision Suggestions: [recap any suggestions made above, and then list the two most important ones you feel need to occur to achieve maximum effectiveness.]

I would like to see one or two more sources with one more idea. This would make the paper a bit longer and diversify it too.