Peer Review: Romeo and Juliet

Romeo and Juliet

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.

The piece clearly addresses how great of a film Luhrman’s Romeo and Juliet is. The author clearly has ethos in the review based on the amount of description and the word choice used. I really liked the review’s style and flow.

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

·       argument(s) supported, abstractions made concrete

The author uses reactions to many of the scenes in the film to support her arguments. The review talks a lot about the plot of the play, which could be seen as a spoiler, but I liked the commentary on each scene, especially the ending scenes. The language used to describe the actors was very enticing and kept authority.

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

The author cultivates a lot of ethos through strong word choice and interesting references and metaphors.

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

Yes, it is very clear in the introduction that the author likes Romeo and Juliet and wants to explain why.

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

     

The conclusion was lacking. The final description of the death scene does not flow into the conclusion well because the conclusion could be elevated to match the same intensity.

3.      Technical Considerations 

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

The paper flows very well except into the conclusion.

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

Word choice was exceptional.

·       research is evident, cited, and incorporated smoothly

Sources are cited at the end of the review, but nothing is quoted or even paraphrased from those sources.

·       grammar and spelling

Take the contractions out such as Doesn’t and It’s. Rephrase some of the passive voice to make it active (word has filters under proofing to check for this). During the final scene, you use the word We to describe yourself and the audience, which flows well with the paper, but try to avoid first person if you can.

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

Use citations in your work, whether it is quoting or paraphrasing. Edit some of the grammatical issues with the paper. Those are my only suggestions because the description was excellent and kept my interest.