Weblog Article Peer Review Form B – Second Review
Writer’s Name: Carmen Keers
Assessor’s name: Janoeke Pauw
Date: 14 October 2007
Rating Scale: 1 = Yes 2 = Somewhat 3 = No
Rate the article by giving a 1, 2 or 3 for each question. Read the article once to get a general idea of what it is about, then read it a second time to rate it.
1. Is the topic interesting? 1
2. Is the title original and appropriate? 1
3. Is the introduction complete? 1
4. Is the body of your article complete? 1
5. Is the conclusion well-developed? 1
6. Is the article well-organized overall? 1
7. Is the article easy to understand? 1
8. Is the article interesting to read? 1
9. Has any plagiarised material been removed? 3
Do you feel that the writer has improved the article? Why or why not? Be specific.
Yes, I do. She improved two of the three points which I thought she should improve for a good article. One point she didn’t improve is the titles in the article itself. I think these give the article a more clear structure, but without these titles it’s still a good and well-organized article.
Has the writer changed the article adequately according to your suggestions forimprovement of your first assessment? Describe the changes and state specificallywhether you think they are an improvement.
I made comments about some sentences, words and the missing titles. She corrected the sentences and words. Those were the most important things for an improvement.
Are you happy to have this article on your weblog? Why or why not? Be specific.
Yes, I am. It’s a good written article and the subject is very interesting for our O’Neill project.
Give the writer this completed form.
