Peer Reviews.
Thesis Peer Review:
Partners Thesis: Music has benefits for everyone, whether it is for entertainment or educational purposes or even communication, but the world does not consider that music may be used for a bigger and more beneficial cause. Music helps people to cope with stress, remember forgotten memories, or/and just give pleasure from listening.
​
1. Does your partner’s thesis address a debatable topic?
Jennie's thesis is debatable on the grounds that music has benefits for everyone, as a critic could argue that it is un-beneficial.
2. Does your partner’s thesis make a specific claim on a topic?
Yes, she is claiming that music has many benefits, including therapy.
3. Does your partner’s thesis offer a roadmap for the reader, containing organizational cues as to how to arrange the various parts of my argument in the pages that follow?
Jennie's thesis does offer a roadmap for the reader by offering examples of what is going to discussed in a particular order.
4. Does your partner’s thesis contain the key words or central idea that focuses your partner’s argument?
Yes, the key words and central ideas within her thesis are "music" "benefits" and "educational"
5. Is your partner’s thesis focused enough or complex enough to satisfy the page length of the assignment (minimum 2,000 words)?
I think her thesis offers her a lot to work with, as there are so many things she can discuss concerning the benefits that music offers people. She should be able to easily write 2,000 words with her current thesis.
6. Can your partner support her or his thesis with the material available?
Yes, she seemed to be very knowledgable and passionate about her topic; there also seems to be an array of information for her to use as support.
7. Does your partner’s thesis really reflect her or his final argument?
I am not sure as we did not fully discuss her total argument, however it opens a door for great argument!
​
Her Review of My Thesis: John F. Kennedy made it his priority to overcome the prejudice during his 1960 campaign to prove that his Catholicism would not be a hindrance to the presidency.”
1. Does your partner’s thesis address a debatable topic?
Yes she does because JFK's presidential election was a controversial issue due to his catholicism.
2. Does your partner’s thesis make a specific claim on a topic?
Yes she is stating that JFK made sure that during his election he addressed and got over the prejudice American people had on him due to his catholic beliefs.
3. Does your partner’s thesis offer a roadmap for the reader, containing organizational cues as to how to arrange the various parts of my argument in the pages that follow?
Yes in her thesis she shows that she is going to show that JFK made it a priority to overcome the prejudice of Catholicism and a catholic in the White House.
4. Does your partner’s thesis contain the key words or central idea that focuses your partner’s argument?
Yes, key words include: "priority", "prejudice", and "catholicism"
5. Is your partner’s thesis focused enough or complex enough to satisfy the page length of the assignment (minimum 2,000 words)?
Yes it does because JFK's presidential election was one of the controversial ones and I think she will be able to write a lot about JFK.
6. Can your partner support her or his thesis with the material available?
Yes, because there a lot of resources that debate with Kennedy's presidency
7. Does your partner’s thesis really reflect her or his final argument?
Yes because the main controversial reason that people did not want Kennedy as president is because of his catholic background.
Paper One Review:
My Review of Partners; Jennie Oh
Part 1
Yes she uses the peer reviewed journal article “New Developments in Music Therapy,” by Darko Breitenfeld. Jennie does discuss and define the term “genre” in her introduction, using a definition from Bedford Book of Genres. She briefly relates it to her specific topic before going into her thesis statement; I think there is definitely potential for her to discuss the notion of the authors in order to create a more analytical/extensive introduction. Thematically her artifacts are all related; the topic of her paper is Music Therapy, therefore all of her artifact share the overarching topic of Music Therapy. The genres she chose and will use are a journal, a youtube video, and a magazine article. Due to the fact it’s only the first draft, she’s only written about the journal article but she does discuss how the journal falls into the typical format but then also discusses the differences. She talks about how Breitenfeld doesn’t necessarily incorporate pathos and ethos as much as logos; I think there is lots of potential to develop more on that with like quotes from the journal. She doesn’t explicitly discuss why the genre is chosen but it is kind of implied throughout her paragraph. She does discuss ethos, pathos, logos, purpose, and tone, but doesn’t discuss reference system, variety/reliability of sources, target audience, modes, media, structure, style, as much. To create a more in depth analysis of the genre and the journal in general, I think going into each of the “analytical points” relating to the genre of peer reviewed journal articles in general, as well her artifact specifically. In the introduction she begins to discuss the difference between the video artifact and the journal but I think she should do individual paragraphs about each artifact and then comparing them; the issue is not addressed yet but she has set up the paper to do so. Yes, her paper is well structured so far. I didn’t necessarily notice any convoluted sentences but some were more narrative than analytical. I think her body paragraph about the journal article was the best part so far; developing the introduction a little more would allow for more insight in what each paragraph will discuss.
Part 2
The constructive criticism I received was relating to adding better and smoother transitions, to which I agree with and for sure can improve on. I suggested that Jennie altered her diction slightly to make her statements more analytical and less narrative.
Partner's Review of my Paper
Part 1
1.) Yes, she uses "The Catholic Question: Religious Liberty and JFK's Pursuit of the 1960 Democratic Presidential Nomination" by Thomas Carty
2.) Yes she does have an introduction and I think she does a good job to explain what genre is in her point of view.
3.) She will have all of her artifacts connected because they will all be about JFK. She will be using 3 artifacts about JFK from a peer reviewed journal article, book, and a video.
4.) The genre of the other artifacts will be a book, video, and peer reviewed journal article.
5.) No this peer reviewed journal article does not deviate from the norm so she could not point that out. She does make it known that it is like a basic peer reviewed journal article. She shows that this artifact's point was to show Catholicism's impact on JFK's election and how thats the main argument.
6.) She does not show the reason why the author might have chosen to write in this genre but she does point out what the author uses to make his or her argument more evident. She includes examples on how this author made his more argument persuasive and she commented on that part of the artifact.
7.) She mentions how the artifact uses ethos and logos more than pathos. She does use a lot of analysis to show how this author writing in this genre explain about the authors argument.
8.) She did start her second artifact for a little bit and she did transition to the second artificat smoothly. She transitioned very straight forward and on to the next topic sort of way.
9.) Yes as of right now it seems that her paper is structured well. Everything flowed and was coherent.
10.) No she does not have messed up sentences most of her sentences make sense except for one but that was probably because she did not double check. That one sentence did not confuse me, I could still understand what her point was.
11.) As of right now she did a good job on her second paragraph about her peer reviewed article. I think she commented well on how the author uses this specific genre to show and argue his or her claim.
Part 2
1.) I think the most constructive feedback I gave to her was question 8 about transitioning. Yes it was smooth but I feel like should could've transitioned to her second artifact a lot more smoother, and she agreed with my comment
2.) Peyton said that she thinks the diction I use is really narrative sounding and not more like an analysis paper. I think she is right I can use better diction to improve my paper.
​