Project 2 Peer Workshop
For our Project 2 Peer Workshop, you are going to be grouped up in order to exchange drafts
and give/receive constructive feedback prior to turning in the final draft of your Rhetorical
Analysis. Please see your grouping on the discussion board.
Before you begin reading your partner’s draft, please record their name and read their
responses to the “Pre-Workshop” questions in their discussion post. Record their responses
(i.e., via copy-paste) in the “Pre-Workshop” section below, on the first page.
Note: If your partner neglected include answers to any or all of the Pre-Review questions in
their post, you may simply note that fact under each question and proceed to the next page.
Once you have completed the Pre-Workshop, move to the second page.
Your partner’s name: Madalyn Banks
Pre-Review Questions (record YOUR PARTNER’S answers to these, NOT your own)

What stage is your draft at? Is it complete or still in progress? Is there anything
missing that you are already aware of?
1. My draft is not complete and still has a lot to go but it is finalized up into the point I am at.

What are you confident about in your work? What do you NOT feel you need feedback
on?
2. I am confident about my sources and my layout overall.

What are you unsure about in your work? What DO you feel you need feedback on?
3. I am unsure about the depth of my rhetorical anaylsis.
Now that you have completed the Pre-Review, take a look at the following questions. As you
are reading through your partner’s draft, keep the following questions in mind and record any
feedback as you go.
Keep your partner’s answers to the Pre-Review questions in mind as you give feedback.
After you finish reading, make sure fill out any remaining unanswered questions.
Peer Review Questions

What was your favorite part/aspect of your partner’s essay? What is something (or
things) they do really well?
I think the information presented and the depth of analysis was very well done.

Were there any portions of the essay that you had trouble following? Why do you
think that was? Do you have any suggestions for how it could be clarified?
The last paragraph included is very long, and it seems to cover multiple topics. I think it could
be broken up into smaller subtopic paragraphs, which would help strengthen the delivery of the
information provided.

Identify your partner’s thesis statement. Does it make a clear and meaningful
comparison about the two artifacts?
“Using rhetoric, the two artifacts I have selected demonstrate what cheerleading can do to your
body and how dangerous it can be while demonstrating ways to continue doing it safely.”
This thesis statement does not mention the names of either artifact, not does it compare them.
However it does state the topic that they are both about.

How often and effectively does your partner incorporate specific examples from the
artifacts to reinforce their analysis?
There are multiple specific examples from the YouTube video mentioned, though there is
almost nothing from the article. This is probably because what is written is mainly about only
one artifact, but make sure to include more specific examples when referring to the article as
well.

Where in the essay do you want to know more? Are there any points that you think
your partner could provide additional examples or elaboration?
Obviously since it is incomplete, there is not much information about the article, but I would
like to see that.

Any final thoughts you haven’t had the chance to share?
In its current state, the main analysis is of the YouTube video, and I think that it would be smart
to make the artifacts feel more connected. It is hard to tell right now though because it is
incomplete.