Be able to critique their own and others’ work by emphasizing global revision early in the writing process and local revision later in the process. Peer review
I think the peer-reviewing I’ve done thus far has been pretty structurally sound, for the most part, I believe the work I’ve done on peer-reviewing has been helpful. I think in my second bout of it I did more local revision suggestions than I did in the second one. However, I do believe I did a fair amount of global revisions for both papers.
I’m going to be examining paper two’s peer view comments that I did on Jackson’s paper, out of all the papers I did peer reviews on I believe this paper had the most comments on it. I notice that a lot of the comments don’t necessarily fit into the code we have set up for it, as they’re mostly observations rather than specific suggestions. The first comment is commending him for his good word choice which doesn’t necessarily fall under any of the categories, had I suggested better word choice than I could argue that it’s local revision. The second comment is a comment arguing on the topic matter that he’s discussing so it’s more of a personal opinion rather than a constructive comment. The next comment however is a local revision comment and it’s just regarding sentence structure. Again after that is another local revision comment discussing sentence structure but the comment after that is a just a comment commending his work. Following that is more local revision and then bouncing back to commenting on the content matter, rather than what could be changed. The rest of the comments continue with the same structure as the other ones, this makes me realize that I need to be more focused on providing feedback for what could be changed rather than commenting solely on the content matter because it doesn’t necessarily offer anything useful or resourceful for the writer to look at and try to change in their final draft with a lack of comments to work off of.
