Research Paper Feedback

Author's Name

Reviewer's Name

The title is intriguing, merely functional, cryptic? misleading, clever play on words? A better title might be:

The introduction (didn't?) grab our attention by:

I clearly knew what your position on argument was when I read:

Audience: the author chose a good audience because

Given the relative hostility or sympathy of the audience, has the author used the right mixture of ethos, pathos and logos? Explain how (give examples).

Ethos: the author comes across as ____________, _____________, but also ______________________. I base this assessment on the following examples:

Pathos: here's where the author appealed to the audience's emotions

Was it overdone? (could backfire?) Underdone, in that the audience will probably not be moved to action?

Here's some examples in which the author appealed to the audience's values. Is this done effectively? Can you think of other values that could have been used?

Logos: your claims about _____________________, _____________________, ____________________and _____________________________ were well supported by:

However, I'm not sure your audience would believe the part about____________ unless you provided the following support/proof.

The paper gave me a good sense of the historical or social context of the topic? To be completely convinced, the audience might want/need to know more about:

The conclusion gave a feeling of completion by (summarizing? "echoing" intro? offering a course of clear practical action? Or wimped out with some lame only -time-will-tell scam? or farfetched prediction?)

Style: the voice (level of formality) of the paper was appropriate because of the following effects on the audience:

Put a star next to sentences that are lively and stylish (Explain why you liked them; often these are parallel, have sensory details or metaphors). Put a squiggly line under sentences that need to be recast .