Mod. 3| Peer Review of Web Article

You will notice that this discussion board is set up with two due dates: one for posting your draft and one for responding to your peers. This is because your peer responses to this discussion board are expected to be longer and more detailed than is required in most our other discussion boards. Therefore, you are being given extra time to focus on these peer responses and make them as detailed and robust as possible.

Step 1: First Due Date: Tuesday 11/7

For this discussion board, you should attach a draft of your Persuasive Web Article as a reply to this discussion board. Please type a 2-3 sentence description of the topic of your article, your specific audience, and the specific persuasive stance you are taking, and then attach your draft as a Microsoft Word doc or docx file or PDF. (If you decided to create your web article on a platform such as Wix.com or WordPress.com, you can copy/paste a link to your site rather than attach a file.) This draft should be at least 800 words.

• Please note that you are not copying/pasting your draft into the discussion board reply. Instead, you are typing a brief description of your article (see above) and attaching a file.
• For instructions on how to attach a file to a discussion board on Canvas, see the Canvas CommunityLinks to an external site..

The draft you post to this discussion board should:

• Be an expanded version of the draft you submitted for instructor feedback.
• Be addressed to a specific audience and have a clear, supported persuasive stance.
• Include visual components and hyperlinks.

Step 2: Second Due Date: Sunday 11/12

After you submit your draft to this discussion board, you are going to give peer review feedback to one of your peers by the second due date. Since the purpose of this discussion board is for everyone to receive feedback, please first respond to people on the discussion board who do not yet have peer feedback. Part of your peer review grade includes carefully selecting classmates with very little feedback, so that everyone gets feedback.

To respond to a peer, follow these steps:

• Open your peer’s draft by clicking on the file they attached (or the link to their digital site).
• Open a separate Word document and respond to the following 7 questions/prompts, typing your responses on the Word document. Your responses should be detailed and in complete sentences. You should number your responses 1-7, but you do not need to include the questions/prompts in your response. Be sure to save your work as you go.
• After you have finished responding to the 7 questions below, save your responses and then click “reply” to your peer’s discussion board. Attach your peer review feedback as a Microsoft Word doc or docx file.

Peer review feedback questions:

1. Your peer should have included a 2-3 sentence description of their project on the discussion board (along with a link to their draft). Who did they identify as the specific audience for this persuasive web article? Based on the draft that they posted, is this specific audience explicitly addressed in the draft they posted? If so, identify at least 2 places where this audience is made clear. Remember, there should be no question about who the web article is attempting to persuade.

• • Or, if you are unsure of the audience or you think there is a mismatch between who your peer identified as their audience and the person/group they are actually addressing in their draft, include a comment that states this and explain your confusion/uncertainty. Here, be sure to reference at least one specific part of their draft where you find the audience unclear/confusing.

1. Does the web article provide the sufficient background information/context that is needed for this particular audience to understand the ideas presented? If so, identify at least one area where this is done particularly well and explain what works well.

• • Or, if not, identify an area where this could be more effective within the web article. In other words, where might your peer provide more/different information that would help their particular intended audience better understand the article and the stance they are taking?

1. Your peer should have included a 2-3 sentence description of their project on the discussion board (along with a link to their draft). What is the specific persuasive stance that they say their article is taking? Based on the draft that they posted, is do you agree that this is the persuasive stance of the article? If so, identify at least 2 places where this stance is made explicitly clear. Remember, there should be no question about the exact persuasive stance of this article.

• • Or, if you are unsure of the stance or you think there is a mismatch between the stance your peer identified and the one that is actually taken in the draft, include a comment that states this and explains your confusion/uncertainty. Here, be sure to reference at least one specific part of their draft where you find the stance unclear/confusing.

1. Does the web article use multiple sources to advocate a particular stance? Remember, the web article should use at least 7 sources. If so, identify at least 2 areas where this is done particularly well and explain what works well.

• • Or, if the article does not incorporate multiple sources or you think this could be strengthened, identify at least one area where this could be integrated into the web article.

1. Does the web article bring in specific quotations for support? If so, comment identify at least 2 areas where this is done particularly well and explain what works well.

• • Or, if the article does not bring in specific quotations for support or you think this could be strengthened, identify at least one area where this could be more effectively integrated into the web article.

1. Does the web article include hyperlinks? If so, identify at least 2 hyperlinks and comment on how effective these are for the particular audience and persuasive stance. Specifically, do these hyperlinks add relevant information/support, point the audience to additional resources, or otherwise add to the persuasiveness of the article? Here, you should comment on at least 2 specific hyperlinks in the draft and their effectiveness. If you think they could be more effective, state this and explain what could be strengthened. Be specific.

• • If the draft does not include hyperlinks or you think this could be strengthened, identify at least 2 places where you think a hyperlink would enhance the persuasiveness of the article. Clearly state where you think the hyperlink should go and why you think this would strengthen the article.

1. Does the web article include visual components such as photos, images, graphs, etc.? If so, identify at least 2 visuals and comment on how effective these are for the particular audience and persuasive stance. Specifically, do these visuals make the writer more credible, include relevant information, make the article more interesting/appealing, or otherwise add to the persuasiveness of the article? Be specific.

• • If the draft does not include visual components or you think this could be strengthened, identify at least 2 places where a visual component would enhance the persuasiveness of the article. Clearly state where you think the visual should go and why you think this would strengthen the article.