1) Does the introduction succeed at getting your attention (with an opening hook)? Does the introduction give you a clear sense about the current state of the problem (the location & size of the problem, who is affected) and make a case for why this is an important problem that deserves our attention? Explain: why or why not?
2) a. Is there a thesis statement in the introduction that clearly names the best solution/policy to minimize the problem and states where/who/what should implement the solution/policy? Does the thesis list the reasons why the policy is the best?  Copy (write down) the thesis statement and note any advice here.
3)  Does the paper provide a (short!) description of the solution/policy (about one paragraph long)? Does the description of the policy state what the policy will do? In other words, do you understand how the policy/solution will implement change through a definite course of action? If not, what questions do you have about the policys implementation?
4)  Does the remainder of the paper analyze the policy/solution for its strengths (Causation Analysis; Coverage/Comprehensiveness Analysis; Cost/Benefit Analysis; Feasibility Analysis; Comparison Analysis)? What three analytical arguments are covered? Are you convinced that the policy is the best solution? Why or why not?
5) Do the topic sentences make an analytical claim that the paragraph then proves? Note that a topic sentence should not summarize a source; topic sentences should represent the writers analytical assessment about the topic/problem.
a. Read the topic sentence in the first body paragraph does this topic sentence make an analytical claim (i.e. argument)?
b – d. Repeat the above question for the topic sentence of each body paragraph in your peers essay (i.e. not the introduction and conclusion)
6) Organization: Each paragraph should only cover the point/claim made in the topic sentence. Do any of the paragraphs contain multiple points, distinct from the point/claim in the topic sentence? Make a note next to any new points/claims in the middle of paragraphs, so your peer might consider revising with a new paragraph there. Conversely, do any of the paragraphs seem repetitive or make the same point? Repetitive paragraphs should be revised and condensed into one paragraph. Note the paragraphs that seem repetitive (i.e. paragraph #3 and #5 seem to make the same point).
7) Does each body paragraph contain evidence to support the analytical point made in the topic sentence? Are there enough references/citations to outside sources to prove the point? Is there enough analytical elaboration after the cited material to make sure the reader understands how this information is relevant to the overall argument? Note any places where the evidence or elaboration might be stronger.
8) Is the research well-synthesized (i.e. does each paragraph use information from multiple different sources) and properly cited in MLA format? Is the research well-integrated (i.e. does your peer introduce the credentials each author named in the essay? and do any quotes need more context beforehand to make them read more seamlessly)? Note any missing source intros or areas of abruptness.
9) Consider the word choice & language are specific words used to covey the argument? Are any words vague or grammatical mistakes that hinder your understanding (do you need to re-read a sentence a couple times to understand the point)? Circle put a question mark near vague word and grammar issues that hinder clarity, and make note of these issues (i.e. in paragraph 3 and 5 there are some vague words I dont understand).
10)  Evaluate the writers use of visual (multi-modal) argumentation:
a. Are there a variety of different kinds of visual elements? (They can all be images, but you should have more than one and several different types: graphs, illustrations, photographs, etc. Other kinds of multi-modality such as videos would also be great.)
b. All multi-modal elements should add something substantial to the argument, even if its just pathos. Are there any that dont seem to be doing much work for the argument? Should they be deleted/replaced?
c. What is the most rhetorically effective multi-modal element that the writer uses, and why do you say so?
11) Look at the annotated works cited page are there at least six credible sources? Are the sources in MLA format? Note any mistakes. Do the annotations explain why each source is credible and how your peer intends to use them? Are there any sources in which you might doubt the credibility?