Peer Review

Step 1: Check the completeness and appropriateness of the autoethnography by answering these questions: ·      Are all three legs of the stool (memoir, researched argument, and sophisticated reflection) in the paper? ·      Does the paper incorporate four sources from GRC’s databases? ·      Is there a full MLA-style work cited list? Are there in-text citations in MLA style? Do these “match” in the sense that, you can find each author’s work cited on the works cited page AND in an in-text citation? Step 2: As you did Step 2 above, you probably noticed that portions of the paper are stronger & more complete, while others are weaker.  ·      Which leg is almost complete right now, and which is the least complete? How can the author of the paper improve the balance of the paper? ·      Are there any sources whose integration needs more work? Tell us about that opportunity to improve. ·      Is the paper really an autoethnography–does it feel like the two example papers you read for the last module–or is it more like a personal narrative paper with some research thrown in? Please advise your author. Step 3: Review especially the thesis statement and topic sentences. ·      Can you find the narrowed topic + what the author is proving or saying about that (thesis)? Is it placed at the end of the introduction paragraph? ·      Can you find the narrowed subtopic + what the author is proving or saying about each (topic sentence) in the body paragraphs? In particular, are the researched argument paragraph topic sentences solidly analytical? Step 4: As a reader, what did you gain from reading this paper? What did you wish it explained more or pursued in a different way? Step 5: Do you have any overall comments to make about the autoethnography, especially about purpose, audience, genre, impetus, or author (rhetorical situation)?

Calculate Price

Price (USD)