Peer Review for Delia

Research Question/Roadmap
1. Does it pose a question? Does the paper identify tensions? Does it say what it’s going to do and what its point is?
a. This ethnography poses a question about why throwers do the sport that they do. Is it because they love the sport? It also asks if they conform to the typical stereotype
Theme
2. What is the quality of the content of the writing: the ideas, perceptions, and point of view? In your words, what is being said? Is it more than a collection of thoughts and observations? According to the author, why does this whole thing matter?
a. I feel that the content is good, but it go more in depth. Your interviews seem to only seem to scratch the surface. Maybe you could try to go more in depth.

3. Is there too much abstraction or generalization? Underline or circle this language in the paper. In other words, are there so few details, examples and explanations that it ends up dull, empty, impossible to experience? Or, perhaps even impossible to understand? Explain.
a. I think there is to much distraction. There is not much detail. How did you become an insider? Again, try to g more in detail.

4. Is there too little abstraction or generalization and too much clutter of details, examples, and explanations? Too little standing back for perspective? Too little forest per tree?
a. Again, there needs to be more detail about the interview and things like that.

5. What is the practical significance of the artifact? What idea does it represent?
a. There is no artifact that is even mention

6. What is the significance of Interview 1?
a. This is someone who has been throwing for a long time, so she can get god information from this person.

7. What is the significance of Interview 2?
a. The significance of this interview is that is someone who is very open and willing to talk about things that pertain to this subculture


8. Are all 3 required scholarly sources developed in the conclusions?
a. All three of her scholarly sources are brought into the paper
9. Is all source material cited according to MLA, both parenthetically and in a Works Cited?
a. There was no works cited page

10. Do the conclusions satisfy the issues the study raises with complexity? How so?
a. The conclusion that is given answers the original question, but could still go into more depth with this paper.

Structure
11. Is the whole thing unified? Is there a central idea to which everything pertains? What? Are there loose ends that don’t seem purposefully so, but accidently overlooked?
a. I think that it is unified, everything seems to relate back to the research question in one way or another.

12. Are the parts arranged in a coherent, logical narrative sequence?
a. I think that the sequence is good for the most part, however I think it could better in some spots.

13. Were the paragraphs really paragraphs? Could you tell what each one was saying? Did they function as helpful and comfortable units of thought, not too much, not too little? Mark any that seem too short or too long.
a. Not all the paragraphs are correct. Some could be either combined or shortened

Language
14. Are the sentences clear and readable? Underline with a wavy line any that you find incorrect or confusing.
a. Not all sentences are clear and some are very difficult to read

15. Are the words used correctly? List any misused words.
a. There are a few words that used incorrectly

16. Is it succinct enough? Not too long, repetitious or dull? Mark any areas for deletion.
a. You repeat a few things a couple times.



17. Is it full enough? Or does the writer squeeze out the juice of human communication and spoken discourse? Is the language, even if correct, dull and indigestible? Does the writer sufficiently use the language of the subculture?
a. I do not think this paper is very full. There could definitely be more language used in the subculture.

18. Does the diction, mood and level of formality fit with ethnography?
a. The mood seems to fit with the ethnography, it seems very energetic

Readerly Response
Describe what was happening to you as you read. Tell which words or phrases stuck out or resonated.
• Due to the lack of detail, I was very bored while I was reading this paper

What happened and what are the implications?
• During this paper many things were happening, Delia had a one on one with some of the throwers. She also did some research of herself on the issue with scholarly articles

What ideas or beliefs or feelings were brought into this piece? How do multiple points of view contribute to your understanding?
• It think that interviews help gain a new point of view so that it is not a one sided paper

What understanding of the culture do you have from reading this piece? What gave you this understanding?
• I have learned that there are many different types of girls that can be throwers. It is not just bigger girls that can do this sport.




The writer has introduced him/herself to you. Describe that meeting. What’s your impression? Did he thrust out his hand for you to shake? Did she sidle up next to you, but fail to look you in the eye? Did he send you a letter bomb or put his arm around your shoulder? Does it seem like the writer is standing on a cliff talking down to an audience below? What sense of the writer do you have? Formal? Casual? Intimate? Jocular? Arrogant? Are you with the writer, against her, or unsure since you don’t really know him?
• I think that Delia is very confident, I think that she would shake my hand and we would be able to have a very god conversation

Is the writer giving in?
• I do not think that she is giving in, she is simply statin her research

What do you want, need, or wish for?
• I would like to see much more detail on what Delia is feeling throughout the paper.

This peer review has been partially modified from peer reviews found in Peter Elbow’s Writing with Power, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.