Good example of research paper on peer review form: research draft #1

English

1. Thesis. Quote or paraphrase the thesis of the paper. Is it a good thesis? How could it be improved in terms of argument or writing?
This appear to be the thesis of the paper, “ there are many evidences that social networks should not be used the social network sites in specific places, such as presenting history of social network, showing its popularity on society, banning some programs in some areas.”  No, the thesis is not clear, and the question is what would happen if the social networking sites can only be used in some specific places while in the thesis the writer changes the topic into should the social networking site be banned on specific places.
2. Introduction: strategies. Does the introduction make you want to keep reading? Why or why not? Is it a fairly traditional opening? How would you characterize the writing strategies used in the introduction?
The opening is traditional as it begins by introduced the topic of the paper. The author begins his paper from the question directly. Such direct approach strategy is a good tool provided it is followed up with specific answers.
3. Introduction: Follow-through. Having read the rest of the paper, did you find that the introduction gave you a good idea of what the author actually did address in the rest of the paper? If not, what is the main point that the author really makes?
Introduction didn’t give a good idea that what would follow in the paper. In the paper, the author actually just wrote about the advantage and disadvantage of the social media site instead of addressing the thesis question.
4. Strategies of Development. What strategies of development do you see the author using on the paragraph level or in the paper as a whole? Which are the most successful?
Most paragraphs are expository paragraph while in one paragraph division and classification technique is used. The author also employs cause and effect technique couple of times. Exposition paragraphs are most successful in this kind of research papers.
5. Development of Ideas. Are the main points of the paper sufficiently developed? Does the paper bring up any interesting points that you would like to see developed further? Do you find any spots where the paper goes off on a tangent or addresses peripheral/irrelevant material? Are there any spots where the author relies too heavily on generalization?

No, the main points are not very well developed and mostly the paper goes of from the thesis question.

6. Organization of Argument. Is the argument organized effectively? Do the ideas follow each other in a logical, understandable way? Are there any places that are confusing?
The arguments are not organized effectively. Most of the times there are simple narration of facts without any development of arguments
8. Transitions. How are the transitions between paragraphs? Mark with * on the paper one transition that worked really well and write out below why you thought it was successful. Mark with an x on the paper one transition that is less polished and write out below why it doesn’t work as well.
* There transition seems to flow naturally and the author used transition phrase correctly to smoothly move from one idea to the other.  (page 3 para. 2)
X  Here, transition is very abrupt without any proper continuance of ideas and there is no use of proper transition phrase. (page 2 para 3)
9. Paragraphing. Think about the paragraphs themselves for a moment. Does the author use topic sentences? Is that a successful decision? Are the paragraphs more or less cohesive — i. e. do they focus on/develop one idea? Are any paragraphs too long or too short for easy reading?
Some paragraphs have topic sentences, but most of them start with general information sentences and not with a specific topic sentence.  There does exist cohesiveness in the paragraphs. One or two paragraphs are quite long otherwise the length of paragraphs is fine.
10. Style I. Is the point of view consistent throughout the paper? Does the author use precise, vivid language? Is there unnecessary repetition?
No, the point of view is not consistent. The author uses very banal language and does not support the thesis forcefully. The wording is confusing on some places.
11. Style II. Does s/he vary sentence structure? Are there too many short, choppy sentences, or ones that are overly complex and need to be broken up? How do the sentences flow into one another?
Around 50% of sentences are short, i. e. less than thirteen words. There are some sentences that are unnecessarily long and create confusion. On many places, sentence flow is erratic and abrupt the follow of reasoning.
13. Integrating quotes. Does the author integrate quotes well? Does s/he vary the mode of integration? Are all the quotations used relevant to the argument? Does the author paraphrase or summarize where appropriate? And is the citation form correct? Is MLA format used correctly?
No, the author does not integrate equations well. Mostly, he just writes the quotes without any connecting phrase. Yes, in-text MLA citation method is correctly used, but the page numbers are missing.
14. Sources. Does the author use source material effectively to prove his/her points? Does the author utilize sources as background material or to lend authority to his/her argument?
Mostly, he uses the source as background material and fillers. On other places, these sources are used to extend the argument instead of providing authority to the author’s arguments.