When I review my peers’ papers and projects, I try to offer as much revision as possible, but then again I am one set of eyes that can only catch so much. In this Learning Outcome, one of my peer’s work is given with my revision comments and concerns. This project talks about what the meaning of food is to the writer.
In revisions, I like to focus on what could be added or reformatted to the paper. Places where points can be elaborated or clarified is where I really like to direct my attention to. In the peer review document, there are many times that I, as a reader, wanted more from the writer. For example, the thesis that this writer had for this draft was a little too vague for my liking. As a peer reviewer, I wanted to help the writer to strengthen their paper, so I recommended being more specific in their thesis. I wrote, “Be more specific in your thesis. The reader knows that you don’t recommend living on soylent, but why? I think giving your thesis a little push will give the reader more context of what your essay is about.” Unclear theses are something that I find myself struggling with from time to time. Seeing the difference of a strong thesis in a work that isn’t my own, helps me learn how to format my own theses.
Before taking this course, my peer reviews lacked in substance and often only included surface level or local revision. Most comments I had were adding missing words or suggesting where to put a comma, something I still try to incorporate, but now I know the importance of having both local and global revisions.
