You have been sent copies of two papers, each written by another member of the class. Your job is to review these papers, as though for an editor (me) and for the authors of those papers. You should seek to provide constructively critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their work. You should not offer your opinions on whether you agree with the author's thesis. However, you should indicate the extent to which you are (or are not) persuaded by the argument that the author presents to support the proffered thesis. Moreover, you should point out to the author any elements of the work that interfere with your ability to be persuaded.
Your review must be a written, typed evaluation. You may address the author or the editor. There are a number of elements of each paper to which you should be attentive and, if appropriate, on which you should comment:
Thesis: Does the author identify a sensible thesis? Note that you should not comment on whether you agree with the thesis, but rather whether there is a clearly stated thesis, and if so, is it ``right-sized'' (neither trivial nor overly expansive.)
Arguments: What are the arguments presented in support of the thesis and its corollaries? Are they clearly stated and supported? Support should be through citation and through reasoned statements. Emotional appeals (even subtle ones) should be noted and discouraged. Speculation is allowed so long as it is admitted and does not dominate the volume of the paper.
Structure: Does the paper flow? Does it lead from one topic to the next with clear transitions? Are all unusual terms and concepts defined before they are used? Is the structure of the argument easy to follow?
Language: Is the writing clear, concise, and communicative? Are words chosen correctly and with an awareness of nuance, and sentences structured in the most readable form? Are transitions between sentences clear? Are concepts divided into paragraphs well? Is the writing too informal? Or is informality used judiciously?
Mechanics: Does the writer use grammar and punctuation correctly and with attention to clarity and communication?
Appearance: Is the paper aesthetically pleasing? Are there widows/orphans and hangers? Are margins symmetric? Is the font easy to read and a proper size? Is line spacing reasonable? Is the spacing around punctuation consistent and helping when scanning the document?
Don't comment on absolutely everything. If a consistent error appears (e.g. split infinitives), then comment on it with a couple of examples, trusting that the author can generalize the correction to the whole paper. State clearly which elements of your review are most critical, and which are merely an attempt to modestly or minutely improve the work. Remember that anything impedes your ability, or even your predisposition, to agree with the arguments being presented is something about which you should notify the author.
You must upload PDF versions of your two reviews using this assignment's submission web page. You will need to login using your Amherst College username and password to submit your work. Note that since you must upload two reviews, then you will need to visit this page twice, uploading one review upon each visit.