PEER CRITIQUE, Project #2, Art Review Nichols, Fall 14

Draft #2

Instructions: Please print out 2 copies of this critique form; you'll use them to critique two of your classmates' second drafts over the conference week. Be sure to return your work to the writers, and to save the critiques completed on your own draft. (You'll staple them to the final version of Project #2.)

You may alternately open this document in Word and simply type in your responses, then email it to your classmate. If you do this option, it helps to type responses in a different font or color to set them apart visibly from the questions.

Your responses to the items below should be thoughtful, thorough, and well-developed. This is an exercise as much for the critiquer as for the paper writer, because it gives you practice with close reading and editing. Avoid yes-no responses as much as possible. If you do answer a question with "yes" or "no," you must explain your response. (Why "yes" or how "no"?) Try also to balance flattery with constructive criticism.

Paper writer's name ______Critiquer's name ______

1) Read through the draft once. Ask the writer a good question or two about the draft or topic.

What do you especially like about the draft? Anything especially insightful, original, imaginative? Good command of mechanics and style? A forceful argument? Striking details?

2) Does the draft have an effective opening that

  1. engages you, makes you want to read more? What does the review do to hook the reader right off the bat?
  2. prepares you for what is to come?
  3. make clear what the subject/focuswill be?
  4. offer any needed background info., such as who the artist is and where that artist may be in his/her/their career; the type of art under review; the reason or occasion for the review, etc?

e. offer any needed info. about the reviewer? His or her interests and biases, purpose for writing the review, qualifications as a reviewer, etc.?

3) It's very important that the reviewer define his or her criteria. I.e., the reader needs to know the principles upon which their central judgment is based. Has the writer in the draft before you defined (explicitly or implicitly) "good art " (where "art" is the genre under review, be it music, film, painting, dance, etc.)? Has the writer explained (explicitly or implicitly) his or her personal criteria for determining whether or not a work is "good"? (Those criteria will likely become the claims in the body of the essay, as well as the topic sentences of the paragraphs.)

Summarize the reviewer's definition of "good [film, novel, CD, painting, etc.]" here:

Summarize the writer's criteria here:

A good [film etc.] should: ______, ______, ______,

______...
4) Do the criteria make sense, or need further justification or warrants? Has the writer situated those criteria? Have they put their ideas "in the context of art appreciation and the study of art at large" by drawing connections to our readings, internet links, other views of art, or class discussions? (Recall the "perspectives cone" we've had on the board a couple times.) If this area of the essay is weak, offer some suggestions:

5) How clearly, logically, and consistently is the writer applying those criteria? Does each distinct criterion that you mentioned in #3 above get fully developed and applied to the subject under review in at least one paragraph? Or is the writer mixing claims in the paragraphs, introducing new criteria out of nowhere as the essay proceeds, or contradicting the criteria laid out in the introduction? Write a comment about this to the writer:
6) It's helpful in a review to address some specific elements of the work in question. For instance, if the reviewer is looking at a music CD, he or she might examine such features as lyrics, cover art, arrangement of songs, album theme, production qualities , technical skill, creative skill, originality, energy, relevance and meaning, emotional impact, intellectual impact, cover art, etc. Offer suggestions.

7) How are the essay's paragraphs working? Does each one have a helpful explicit or implicit transition? Is each one clearly focused on a central claim (topic sentence), with ample, specific grounds (SPECIFIC DETAILS FROM THE ART WORK UNDER REVIEW) to back that claim? (The writer should be describing the artist or art works in question very vividly and exactly.)

8) Is there any place in the draft where you get lost or can't follow? Point this out to the writer on the draft itself.

9) If you notice any mechanical errors (misspellings, incomplete sentences, run-ons, etc.) circle them or name them in the margins (do not correct them for the writer).

10) What do you think is the absolute WORST thing about this draft? What should the writer do to prevent this paper from being the ruin of his or her college career, and the end of any happiness he or she might have had in their brief time here on earth?

What is the BEST thing about this draft? Anything this writer should win the Pulitzer Prize for, or, at the very least, a nice grade?

Any other comments or ideas? Thanks for your help!