Artifact Analysis
Title of Reviewed Essay: _____________________ Reviewer Name: __________________
Peer Critique
The goal here is to help your classmates revise their writing. So be serious, detailed and thorough--but also constructive and respectful--in your criticisms as you can be. Use additional sheets as necessary.
1. Identify the author's critical thesis or main idea. Is it clearly worded? Is it early in the paper? Does it guide the analysis throughout the paper? Suggest ways of revising to make it better, clearer, more interesting – even if you think the main argument is “good enough.”
-In this essay, I will use a generic criticism of political hip hop and gangster rap music to argue that as a rhetorical hybrid, GKMC is in a unique position to self reflexively deconstruct several of the tropes engrained in rap music. –The thesis is somewhat clearly worded, but made me a little confused when it mentions GKMC being in a “unique position” as to what the author meant. –The thesis is in a good place not too early in the essay and not too far in. –It does guide the analysis throughout the paper –One way that I think the author can revise the thesis is to clarify how GKMC is in a unique place, but that is just my opinion.
2. How well organized is the essay? Are the points clear, previewed early in the paper, and do they support the thesis? Suggest alternative ways of organizing this paper, if necessary.
-The essay is well organized from beginning to end. -From the beginning the author makes the point clear as to what they were writing and what they were going to write later on. The author’s claims support his thesis as mentioned early on in the essay. I honestly don’t have an alternative way of organizing this essay except make it a little more clear when jumping from one topic to another.
3. Does the author provide enough credible evidence about the historical and rhetorical situation of the speech and/or about the appropriate genre? What were you left wondering or
Peer Critique
The goal here is to help your classmates revise their writing. So be serious, detailed and thorough--but also constructive and respectful--in your criticisms as you can be. Use additional sheets as necessary.
1. Identify the author's critical thesis or main idea. Is it clearly worded? Is it early in the paper? Does it guide the analysis throughout the paper? Suggest ways of revising to make it better, clearer, more interesting – even if you think the main argument is “good enough.”
-In this essay, I will use a generic criticism of political hip hop and gangster rap music to argue that as a rhetorical hybrid, GKMC is in a unique position to self reflexively deconstruct several of the tropes engrained in rap music. –The thesis is somewhat clearly worded, but made me a little confused when it mentions GKMC being in a “unique position” as to what the author meant. –The thesis is in a good place not too early in the essay and not too far in. –It does guide the analysis throughout the paper –One way that I think the author can revise the thesis is to clarify how GKMC is in a unique place, but that is just my opinion.
2. How well organized is the essay? Are the points clear, previewed early in the paper, and do they support the thesis? Suggest alternative ways of organizing this paper, if necessary.
-The essay is well organized from beginning to end. -From the beginning the author makes the point clear as to what they were writing and what they were going to write later on. The author’s claims support his thesis as mentioned early on in the essay. I honestly don’t have an alternative way of organizing this essay except make it a little more clear when jumping from one topic to another.
3. Does the author provide enough credible evidence about the historical and rhetorical situation of the speech and/or about the appropriate genre? What were you left wondering or