Peer-Editing Questions

1.The draft introduction consists of the only one sentence concluding the thesis statement which is not at all effective. The author could have added the introductory information before the thesis sentence and name the research studies being cited.

2. The thesis is “…technology lead to the growth of impersonal relationships, promotes anti-social behaviors, can lead to ruined relationships, and has given birth to cyber bullying”. The thesis is rather clear, but the author could make it less general and more connected to the network topic.

3. The author uses article quotes and statistics as main evidence. After each claim expressed in a quote, the author gives its explanation in their own words. Instead, the author could include some real life examples of the mentioned theoretical issues to make the supporting evidence more practical.

4. The writer sticks to the topic, and the connection between the thesis and support is clear. However, the author supports not all the claims stated in the thesis sentence omitting “cyber bullying” issue.

5. The basic ideas of the draft are expressed in direct quotes, which are followed by the author’s thoughts, which are mostly vague and general. Indirect quotes and examples of personal experience could be added.

6. Information is placed in logical order, though the most impressive statistics should have been placed at the beginning of defending the thesis statement. There are no clear topic sentences. The beginning of the second paragraph is more informative that supporting of the thesis and thus could be revised and moved to the introductory part.

7. There are no opposing arguments. The author might include data concerning the positive effects of social networks on the level of computer literacy and socialization.

8. There is no concluding paragraph. Based on the research studies, the author could list the main negative effects of social networks and conclude the work with possible solution suggestion.

9. The draft is full of all kinds of grammar, punctuation and, above all, spelling mistakes. MLA format requirements are not followed. Direct in-text citations do not refer to page numbers.

2

1. The introduction is informative and rather effective. However, the quotation used seems inappropriate and should be better introduced into the context, changed for another one or deleted.

2. The thesis is “Communication technologies… are hindering communication quality”. The thesis is clear, but it does not give the reader a sense of purpose.

3. The evidence used is defending the thesis statement and developing the argument. Still, the author could expand the research study and make it more specified.

4. The connection between support and thesis is clear. The transitions are used.

5. Uses of sources could be better integrated into the paper by placing some of them at the beginning of the paragraphs and by using short and indirect quotes.

6. The written text is well organized on paper, though the topic sentences are not clear. The paragraph describing the last negative effect could follow the introduction developing first argument defending the thesis as it contains interesting detailed information and nice academic source.

7. The writer uses opposing arguments about the positive and negative influence of communication technologies. Opposite view should also be supported by reliable evidence.

8. The ending looks more like an introduction rather than a conclusion. It should give some summarizing of all main points that prove the thesis.

9. The most common errors are stylistic and grammatical (e.g. “make people to keep in touch”, “smart phone is became”). Spacing, margins, absence of page numbers do not correspond to MLA format. Long direct quotations should be placed in a free-standing block of text and omit quotation marks.

3

1. The introduction is informative and laconic giving sufficient background and context for the subject. The texts could be introduced.

2. The main idea is clear, with a sense of purpose. The thesis statement is “Though it may affect food and farming industries, labeling GMO products will be beneficial to Californians”.

3. The author uses detailed evidence, but there are no references to the sources.

4. The connection between the support and thesis is clear.

5. The writer successfully uses quotes to support their own ideas. The sources could be integrated more effectively if the author provided some information about them but not only quoted some phrases even without naming the author.

6. The paper is well structured. The evidence is arranged according to its relevance.

7. The writer reveals both positive and negative views on labeling GMO products. The information is detailed and connected to the thesis statement. Examples and figures are present.

8. The conclusion is missing. The author could reinforce the main idea and support perspective in the concluding part of the paper to make it effective and relevant.

9. The word choice is appropriate, sentences have proper punctuation, there are no spelling or grammatical errors. Quotation marks are used incorrectly as there is only a quote without naming its source.