Peer Editing

Purpose:

• exposes you to your classmates' writing (style, ideas, strategies)
• lets you gather you peers' suggestions, encouraging self-directed learning
• brings your attention to faults in your own writing by looking for them in others' writing
• encourages self-responsability and -reliance
• gives you someone else's comments to look at other than MINE! (ha ha!)

Expectations:

• useful, responsible comments (questions, advice, "did you think of this?")
• helpful suggestions, both positive and negative ("keep this -- it works", "change this -- it's confusing", "any examples?")
• respect for others' views, even (especially) if you don't agree
• substantial (not necessarily numerous) comments -- NO gibberish like "this essay is good"

Before submitting a paper for peer editing:

• proofread! -- don't foist your slagwork on someone else (this is peer editing, not peer proofreading)
• make sure the print is dark enough to be easily read (when handing in hard paper copies)

The Process:

• continually ask "who, what, where, when, why, how, how much," etc.
• ask yourself "how would I like someone to explain this to me?" and "what kind of help would I expect in this case?"
• be POLITE, but straightforward
• if there's too much editing to cover, focus on ONE aspect -- e.g. if most faults are grammatical, write and circle "GRAMMAR FAULTS" or "PROOFREAD!" at the top of the first page, CIRCLE the grammar faults as you find them, and instead focus your comments on content and/or style

Things to look for:

Focus:

• does the paper at least address the topic of the assignment (e.g. when the assignment was to explain how to tie shoes, do you instead have in front of you an argument for the legalization of marijuana)?
• does the writer stay on that topic? (does all the information given apply to that topic, or does some of it distract or stray from the topic?)
• does the paper have a point? (does it actually say anything, or does it simply waffle along?)

• are there sufficient examples or details to support the writer's project?
• do the examples and details provided actually apply to that project?
• has the topic been discussed sufficiently in the given space?
• has the writer defined terms/jargon unfamiliar outside the target audience (if a target audience is specified)? [see MECHANICS below]

• does the writer arrange evidence/examples in any kind of order?
• would the project be better served if that order were altered?
• has the given information been effectively divided into paragraphs? can you suggest places where paragraphs might be combined, or new ones started?

• even though you shouldn't be expected to look for them -- much less correct them -- are there any faults of grammar, punctuation, usage, agreement, etc?
• has the writer unwittingly employed cliches, trite expressions, limited-range colloquialisms, or jargon?

• does the paper make sense? (I don't mean "do you agree with the writer's views", but rather "is the writer being clear?")
• is the paper at all interesting? entertaining? informative? if not, what suggestions can you make to help?

• IF you had to give this paper, in its present condition, an HONEST grade, what would it be?