Peer Review 1

In this blog post I will discuss the peer review of the article I revised and my article as well.

peer_review1.jpg, 07/2013; Unknown Publisher. Public Domain.

Here is the completed rubric analysis I completed about Sofia's essay that pertains to doctor-enabled prescription drug abuse.

I reviewed Sofia's Essay regarding prescription drug abuse. I pulled away four things total.

First, I realized that I need to add a lot more factual basis regarding my argument and the circumstances surrounding it. Sofia's argument and opinions didn't come from nowhere; it started with the event, then led to a logical interpretation of the text. Sometimes I felt like I was just spewing rhetoric like politicians do, just saying a bunch of garbage that means nothing.

However I did notice that, like my essay, there was a lack of a strong thesis, in both organization and content. A strong thesis indicates to the reader that they should keep reading and not just skim to the end, and it also gives the essay backbone. Her and my essay both had random points where it felt like factoids and details could fit better into different paragraphs.

Another thing that I also noticed while reading her work was the extended usage of adjectives before verbs.  It's important to vary vocabulary; if you are constantly barraging the reader with adjective - verb setups, it's a strong indicator that you should use more powerful verbs instead. For example, when referring to using a drug, instead of saying "conscious decision", you could say "initiative". It's more memorable.

The main thing that I noticed between Sofia's essay and mine that mine is missing is her usage of direct citations. Often times I would drop a quote summary in without ever citing it! I'll go back and add those later.