Peer Review: Clerks

Clerks

1.  Initial Intentions and Impressions  Please give the author a brief description of what s/he is trying to achieve in the review (a convincingly reliable authoritative opinion of the subject), how the piece is effective, and other initial impressions.

Some parts of the paper were just summary, when your analysis would be more worth your audience’s time. The paper did have good insight and sources in the analysis though and you wrote it well. I would have liked to read more of your analysis because I found it interesting.

2.      Response / Analysis  Evaluate the review with regards to the following key elements:

·       argument(s) supported, abstractions made concrete

You support the arguments well with description and many examples.

·       voice is authoritative and reliable, tone is consistent and appropriate

The voice is authoritative except when you have the plot summary area. The tone is consistent and fits well with the writing that you present.

·       introduction introduces primary source, general argument, and establishes voice

Yes, the author effectively does all of these.

·       conclusion wraps things up, making clear the evaluation of the subject (where it sits in relation to similar experiences)

Yes, you had a very nice conclusion that related to the type of audience that may enjoy this film.

3.      Technical Considerations 

·       Construction issues (the paper flows smoothly; transitions between paragraphs)

The paper transitions well.

·       variety of word choice (author doesn’t repeat words or phrases gratuitously)

I liked the word choice.

·       research is evident, cited, and incorporated smoothly

Research is evident.

·       grammar and spelling

It is a little wordy at the top of the fourth page in the “his job, his current girlfriend…” sentence.

4.  Suggestions for Revisions and General Comments  Please summarize any suggestions you’ve posited earlier, and give 2 constructive suggestions. 

Reread the plot summary area and perhaps add some analysis to some of those parts to support them. I like what you already have because it is descriptive, but you may benefit from adding some of your own input, just not in first person. Secondly, just read the paper out loud and see if there are any phrases that you want to change, there is nothing wrong, but it may help you transition things more easily.