Your name ___________________
Name of the author of the paper _________________
Politics 124 Spring 2005
Ellis
Peer Response
In one sentence, explain what this dialogue is about.
Does the setting contribute to the content and coherence of the dialogue? If so, explain how the setting works to advance the dialogue. If not, suggest ways the setting might be made an integral component of the dialogue.
Does the dialogue take up too many different themes or arguments? Would the dialogue be better if it was focused on fewer topics and explored those in greater depth? If so, indicate what (if anything) should be cut and what should be explored more fully.
Identify places in the dialogue where the participants seem out of character; that is, identify places where they express views that are not in keeping or are even inconsistent with the views they express in the texts? Be specific.
Are there adequate citations to the readings? Indicate at least three specific places where the author could usefully add citations.
Is there someone in the dialogue who seems to come off second best in the argument? How might the arguments of this person be made more persuasive or compelling? That is, what might the loser say to mount a more powerful counterargument?
Identify one thing that the author did in this dialogue that you wish you had done in your dialogue.
If the author could only do two things to improve this dialogue, what two things would you suggest? Which of the two should the author make the first priority in revision, and why is that the most important thing to do to improve this paper?