Peer`s Review

Peer’sReview

Peer’sReview

Inviewing Revant`s work, it is noted that it does not have a title. Theintroduction is a clear representation of the whole paper and can beseen to be significant. This is because it gives a reader a pictureof the discussion in the paper. The topic sentences of most of theparagraphs do not clearly introduce the main points in theparagraphs. Organization of the paragraphs is also poor and preventsthe work from flowing. The writer needs to organize the points anddiscuss a single point in one paragraph. For example, Civil War inthe paper has been discussed in several paragraphs. The author alsohas not given the citation for the work, and one cannot tell theexact sources used. In this case, the writer can be positioned at twoon the scale.

Jenniferhas done a good job in giving out the points in her paper. The titleclearly gives the intention of the paper. Introduction part providesan overall view of the main points discussed throughout thepresentation. The flow of the body is encouraging since the topicsentences are provided an outline of the points discussed in eachparagraph. Citations are well placed, and the sources can be tracedeasily and the quotes are well integrated. The only noted issue isthe length of some of the paragraphs. The points are not simplifiedin the paragraphs. The author falls under four in the scale.

Throughchecking the work done by Taylor, it is noted that it’swell-presented and organized. The title of the work is unique andgives an overall view of the discussed points. The introduction iswell written and outlines the key points on the paper. The citationsare well placed and easy to trace. The author can be rated at fourand a half.