Peer Review



  1. Introduction – the report begins with the introduction of the topic discussed, which is “The Patriot Act: The Positive Outcomes.” The report draws me in within the first sentence by providing an attractive beginning with some interesting information about how the Patriot Act was developed. This introduction is precise and provides enough information to introduce readers to the topic.

  2. Thesis – the thesis of this report states that the Patriot Act provides security to United States that surpasses the discrimination that critics claim it causes. This thesis is clear and precise like the title, but it can be improved by explaining the necessity of security in United States in order to strengthen its justification.

  3. Argument – the strong point of support that has persuaded me in this report is the argument that the Act deters terrorists from performing terror attacks in the country by punishing and convicting terror suspects. The problem area in this report is that it relies more on stating facts than supporting the thesis with sufficient arguments.

  4. Conclusion – the conclusion provides recommendations for federal agents rather than wrapping up the content of the report. However, it attempts to restate the thesis statement and sum up the arguments of the report with one sentence at the end of the concluding paragraph.

  5. Documentation – the report provides MLA format bibliographic citations at the end of the report, but it has some mistakes. First, the works cited are not listed in a new page. Authors’ names are also not specified. MLA parenthetical references are also missing in the paragraphs.

  6. Style – the report is written with a good style involving third person and formal diction. It does not have slang, personal opinions or hypothetical stories.

  7. Sources – the sources lack dates. They seem professional but they lack specific names and dates to be proven so.

  8. Page Layout – The report attempts to use MLA format but it has a few mistakes including: lack of page headers and wrong format of works cited. However, it uses double spacing, correct 1-inch page margins, and effective descriptive title.

  9. Writing Mechanics – there are a few grammatical errors, e.g. “ensure” instead of “assure”

Peer Review






Generally,the piece was written well. It gives in-depth details about thepicture to allow any reader who has not seen the picture create vividand informed mental images. The writer describes every detail of thepicture including the subjects and the surrounding within which theyare. The facial expressions of the children and what it implies arewell explained. The positioning of the children in the picture andthe probable explanation for their position is also well explained.Talking about the surrounding is important too because it completesthe description in the viewer’s mind. The language used is alsosimple and comprehensible. The use of such language makes the pieceunderstandable by readers of different academic attainments. However,I noticed a few grammatical errors in the work. The writer should bemore careful with the use of tenses. For instance saying “Riishave” and “children appears” is grammatically wrong. Somesentences are also joined improperly. Additionally, the writer shouldhave balanced the paragraphs instead of making one too large andothers small.


Thewriter here has a strong command over the English language. Thedescription is very excellent and narrows the description to thesmallest detail. The writer paid close attention to every aspect ofthe picture. I say this because of the way the writer describes theroom in terms of space, walls, cleanliness, and the occupants. Fromwhat I gather from the text, the writer conducted some backgroundresearch about the picture before writing about it. The suggestionsand conclusions the writer makes about the men and the rooms in thepicture are very informative and generally good. Another veryimportant aspect of the piece is the structure, punctuation, andlanguage. The piece is elegantly structured into four well-balancedparagraphs, each with talking about a distinctive matter. Such astructure shows good writing skills. The punctuation is also donewell especially the use of commas and full-stops was well done. Thelanguage is simple, comprehensible, and detailed. However, I noticedminor grammatical issues that I believe the writer should havenoticed if they reread the piece before turning it in.