This document outlines a four-part peer review procedure for reviewing writing portraits: 1. Evaluate the flow and organization of ideas through rearranging sentences and paragraphs. 2. Assess whether the conclusion discusses what was learned from the process. 3. Check that all claims are supported by specific examples and evidence. 4. Discuss goals, strengths, weaknesses, and possible topics for revision with the writing partner.

1. Peer Review Procedure:
Portrait of a Writer
Flathers
English 101
Spring 2020

2. There will be no. Commenting. On grammar or
punctuation errors. None at all. Nada.
Your job is to look at big-picture stuff, and
grammar and punctuation errors are not big stuff.
They are small stuff.
Seriously. No commenting on grammar or
punctuation errors.

3. Part One: Flow
Also known as organization, connectedness of ideas, transitions

4. For traditional essays:
• First, read through your partner’s draft once.
• Then, open up a blank document.
• Copy and paste the first sentences of every paragraph into this new
document in order, so that it looks like its own paragraph.
• Read this new paragraph out loud. Does it sound like its own coherent
story? If not, the writer’s essay isn’t flowing.
• Go back and mark the paragraphs whose sentences seem out of
place. How can the writer better connect these ideas?

5. For multimodal essays:
• This question might be a little more difficult, since the components of
the multimodal projects may not need to connect to one another in
the same way as paragraphs in a traditional essay.
• In this case, what you’re looking for is much more like consistency. Do
any components seem as if they’re out of place? If so, why?
• You can also look at the way the writer intends to present the
information, and in what order. Try rearranging these components in
several ways. Do any of these rearrangements reveal something new
that the writer could say?

6. Part Two: Conclusions
Also known as . . . conclusions

7. For traditional and multimodal essays:
• Does the conclusion talk about something the writer has learned? This
could be anything, although whatever it is the writer learned shouldn’t be
surprising (that is, you should be able to see it coming based on the other
things the writer has talked about in their essay).
• If not, what do you think the writer could talk about having learned, based
on the things talked about in the essay?
• Note: for multimodal essays, the conclusion may not be as neat or easy to
identify as it would be in a traditional essay. If you’re reviewing a
multimodal essay and there’s no clear place for a conclusion, you should
still talk about what the writer has learned through this process and where
that conclusion might go in the project.

8. Part Three: Examples
Also known as evidence, or sources

9. For both traditional and multimodal essays
• The writing in these essays should be highly specific no matter what
form they take. If the writer has made a claim about their writing, no
matter what it is, they should also include some kind of example to
authenticate that claim. For example, if someone says they think
they’re a poor writer, they should explain why. If someone says they
think they write too much, they should give an example of a time
when they wrote too much.
• Look for the claims the writer makes about themselves. Do these all
have specific examples? If not, talk about what your review partner
might be able to talk about in order to get their point across.

10. Part Four: The End
As in, of the peer review process

11. For both traditional and multimodal essays
• The last thing you should do is talk with your partner. You could
choose to discuss several possible topics:
• what were your goals and intentions for this assignment? What did you want
to reader to know or think about? Did you achieve those goals? If not, where
do you think you fell short?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of your partner’s essay?
• Did your partner’s essay bring up any questions that didn’t get answered? Is
there anything you wish the author would talk about more?
• Based on the things you read about in your partner’s essay, what other
possible topics might they discuss?

12. When you’re finished:
• Use the “Save As’ function to save the file with your reviewer’s
comments. Name this file “last name_writingportrait_peer review.”
• Then, open a new document and paste everything from the peer
review document into it but the comments.
• Name this new file “last name_writingportrait_draft2.”
• Based on your reviewer’s comments, start making a revision plan, a
bulleted list of things you know you want to revise for the second
draft.