Example of excellent peer review

While most students are doing a better job of writing specific and thorough peer reviews, the following is a stellar example of how to write a peer review. Notice how Talia specifically tells the author what is working in the paper and what is not working. She even refers to her own writing and also gives clear ideas as to how to work with future drafts. Notice, also, how she is analyzing on both the global and local level.
-Kat


How are you doing?

Well, let me start off by saying that you have taken on quite an issue for your research paper. I think questioning our diets and then comparing them to actual drugs is not only a daunting task, but an eye opening one. This topic, in fact, was one of the main reasons I liked your paper; no one would think to compare the two worlds of fast food and cigarettes, yet you seemed to do it here, relatively well. I think one thing that allowed you to craft an argument like this, is the amazing amount of research that you have done. I really commend your ability to write a sentence that is fully supported by rich and diverse sources. However, on the flip-side of that, I was left a little confused as to where the research physically was in the paper. For the most part I could recognize backup information that you found from another source, but for future reference, try to use parenthetical citations; this will make your paper that much more credible. Another thing that detracted from your paper was your sentence structure. For the most part, the sentences in this paper are…long. This is a problem that I struggle with as well. While at times a long, informative sentence is needed, the paper gets a little difficult to read after a while, simply because there are too many thoughts in one paragraph. By chopping some of your longer sentences, into shorter ones, I think the paper would have a nice mix of sentence structure, making it read much more easily. One additional aspect of your paper that I liked was your tone. In this paper you were able to use a quizzical, interrogational type tone with bits of sarcasm and wit, without sounding pompous. This tone is appropriate for the subject and makes the essay a great read. However, now we must move on to the bigger picture, your thesis. While I did love your topic and your analysis of it, I think your main argument needs to be cleaned up a bit. It felt like there were so many avenues to delve into this issue through, that you weren’t quite sure which one to go with. For example, on the last page of the paper, in one of the last sentences, you bring up the issue of classism and racism in the fast food industry; a great issue to raise. However, to me this seemed to come out of left field, simply because you didn’t mention in your thesis statement that you would be touching on that side of the argument. Just by sitting down and choosing a direction to go in with the paper, will leave it that much more focused and concise. Another “bigger picture” critique is the organization of the paper itself. I really appreciated the way you questioned the topic, then gave some background information, then moved into the Pelman v. McDonalds issue, and finally discussed the repercussions and after math of that case. However, I think the digression away from the fast food to the cigarettes in the third paragraph, was a little too abrupt. By either injecting some food related sentences in there, to balance the paragraph out, or adding a buffer paragraph before or after the third, this paragraph would be a lot more relevant. Overall this paper was written very well, and with some of these suggestions as well as a couple other minor tweaks, I think it has the potential to be really great!

I can’t wait to see the final product!



Sincerely,

Talia Schlair





Descriptive Outline

Paragraph 1:

What is says- This whole paragraph states (and questions) who and what is responsible for what we eat.

What it does- In this paragraph, the readers learn what the issue is which is, who is responsible for what we eat and why do we eat it. This paragraph also establishes why it is important to know about, and what you main talking points in the paper are going to be, these being: how fast food is relatable to drugs and how we have gotten to this point.

Paragraph 2:

What is says: This paragraph says that as a people we have developed a habit of blaming others for our bad eating habits. This paragraph also begins to explain the parallels we see between the fast food industry and the tobacco industry.

What it does: This paragraph serves as the link between the thesis and the body of the paragraph. It starts of by discussing the questions and attitudes behind what we eat, and it ends off by leading into fast food’s comparison to cigarettes.

Paragraph 3:

What it says: This paragraph talks about the history and controversy in earlier years of the cigarette companies, including background information in when cigarettes were found to be dangerous, and the lawsuit (the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement) that followed.

What it does: To be honest, I don’t see what this digression truly does, except from digress from the paper. This paper does provide valid information and parallels between the cigarette industry and the food industry, but while this information is valuable, I think it can easily be placed in other paragraphs and still be relevant.

Paragraph 4 and 5:

What it says: Both of these paragraphs discuss the end result of the Pelman v. McDonalds case, as well as what this case shares with the Tobacco Masters Settlement Agreement. It also talks about the Pelman V. McDonalds role in opening up the subject of obesity in America.

What it does: These two paragraphs serve as the main focus of the paper; the parallels between the cigarette and fast food industries. These paragraphs are what support the paper.



Paragraphs 6 and 7:

What it says: These two paragraphs have essentially the same idea: that the fast food industry is getting wrongfully blamed for obesity, when it is really the consumer’s responsibility and fault.

What it does: Separately these two paragraphs o nothing but reiterate opinions and facts that we have already heard. However, these two paragraphs are discussing the same topic and therefore should be put together. Once joined, this paragraph brings the essay around full circle, and explains the writers opinion on why indeed we should be responsible for what we eat, no one else.



Paragraph 8:

What it says: This paragraph says that many people believe fast food is not a choice, but a reality that many lower class family’s have to live off.

What it does: This paragraph doesn’t really add much to the paper. These three sentences could probably be tacked onto the previous paragraph, but they negate each other. I think that this paragraph goes against the opinions that were just built that fast food IS a choice.



Paragraph 9:

What it says: This paragraph essentially says that Americans don’t care/aren’t recognizing what they are consuming and creating an obesity epidemic.

What it does: Again, this paragraph simply negates the rest of the paper another time, by saying that fast food is a choice and a “stupid” choice. This paragraph doesn’t serve the thesis simply because it is raising an entirely new issue about racism and classism; subjects that were never discussed earlier in the paper.



Paragraph 10:

What it says: In the end, this paragraph states that indeed the people of America are responsible for what they eat because they are not taking the time to see what the effects of eating fast food really are. This paragraph implicates the fast food companies for deceiving the customer.

What it does: This paragraph simply sums up some of the points throughout the paper. While I still feel that some points, like “consumer fraud” hadn’t been touched on in the essay itself, this paragraph was made to wrap up all the ideas set forth in the paper.