Reference no: EM131058737

1. PEER REVIEW SPECIFICS: In 2 full pages, craft a thoughtful response to your peer's FINAL PAPER. Act as if this is the draft they are turning in to the teacher. Before you edit - editing is correcting grammar, spelling, syntax, mechanics, and formatting - just focus on their ideas. You can devote the second to last paragraph to editing (and the last paragraph to praise - you always want to end on a good note!). As you're reading, make sure to identify the below-listed elements at work in their essay. Comment on what's working for those elements and what still needs work. Make sure to explain, explain, and explain why those elements work and don't work (this is how you will get your 2 full pages). For the aspects that don't work, pose questions that will help the writer delve deeper, and suggest ways in which they can make them work. Lastly, suggest relevant passages if necessary.

2. What is their thesis? Which three texts are they comparing? Does it weigh more heavily on crucial differences between the three texts or on the one common thread? How do these similarities and differences relate to one another? Do they extend, corroborate, complicate, contradict, correct, or debate one another? What does the thesis "illuminate" about the texts? Is this illumination original and unobvious? Is it arguable?

• What is the frame of reference? Which three Literary Theories did they choose to look at? Do they mesh well or do they seem compartmentalized? Are they doing a comparative Character Analysis? Are they looking at a particular Theme within all three texts? Did they look at specific Literary Techniques within their chosen texts? Look at how their frame of reference works for the three texts.

• What are their grounds for comparison? Does the writer demonstrate the importance for the comparison between the three texts? Is the comparison ground-breaking and profound, offering new insight into the three texts? Or does it seem like merely summary? How could they establish the importance of viewing the texts from their angle? How could they make a more profound analysis?

• What is their organizational scheme? Are they doing a text-by-text scheme or a point-by-point scheme? How does it work for the flow? Does it seem to transition naturally or is it choppy? How does it work in terms of clarity? Does it seem confusing or is it easy to follow the thoughts? How does it work for illuminating the main thesis? Does it lose the focus or is the focus strong throughout?