To the writer: Briefly describe the audience for this paper. (Be sure to include your audience's position on the issue you're writing about.)
To the reader: Read the draft through once without marking it. Then re-read it, and answer the following questions as thoroughly and specifically as you can.
Underline the claim/thesis. Is it clear? (Do you understand it fully?) Make suggestions for improving the claim/thesis.
Is the claim adequately focused--narrow within manageable/defensible limits? Why or why not? Explain.
Do you feel the writer needs to add any qualifiers or exceptions in order to avoid over-generalizing, which would render the claim less defensible? If yes, explain.
Number the reasons, Rl, R2, etc. Are the reasons sound in logic, i.e., do they avoid logical fallacies, and do they follow logically from the claim? Why or why not?
Does the paper deal with opposing arguments? How successful do you feel the paper is in conceding and/or refuting opposing arguments?
Does the evidence support the reasons? Where is more evidence needed? What kind of evidence is needed?
Does the argument rely on logical and character appeals? Note any place the writer is using (inappropriate) emotional appeals.
Check the writer's use of MLA in-text documentation and works cited and note any possible errors. Also check to make sure all quotes are introduced. Make a note here to let the writer know if you marked any documentation errors.
What are the one or two areas that you feel the writer should address first in revising this paper? What suggestions can you make for conducting those revisions?
Return the paper to the writer and discuss your comments. Either you or the writer should make notes on this sheet or the draft to record your discussion. As soon after the workshop as possible, the writer needs to make a brief revision plan. This worksheet and the revision plan need to be stapled to the workshop draft and included in the folder with the final paper!