Discussion:
1.) What is the thesis claim or question, and what is at stake (how does it matter in the "real world")? Is this thesis claim arguable (as in, somebody could disagree with it)?
2.) Does the introductory paragraph address: Hook, Background, Who Cares, and the thesis claim?
3.) How is the paper organized in terms of its supporting paragraphs? What are the logical links between the paragraphs? Where does the structure feel coherent, and where random?
4.) In the supporting paragraphs, underline the topic sentences (i.e. supporting claims)? Do the paragraphs feel focused or do they wander? Number each paragraph. Where does the support of the topic sentences feel complete and fair? Where incomplete? Below, critique the unity and coherence of the paragraphs. List and explain why the paragraphs are disorganized. Make suggestions, such as adding transitions or cut and pasting sections.
5.) When the writer analyzes throughout discussion, are quotes, details and summary woven cleanly into the writer's prose, or just plopped into the paper? Find an example of a strong use of supporting detail. The data or detail should be placed in relevant context, then depicted clearly/vividly and then interpreted/analyzed to support the topic. Find an example of a weak use of supporting detail too. Where is the interpretation clear (i.e. it contributes to the thesis), and where does it feel incomplete or irrelevant?
6.) What does the conclusion do? Does it bring up new questions or reflect in a different light why the paper's claim matters? Does it circle back to the beginning in any way?
7.) How would you characterize the writer's voice? Does it sound trustworthy, intelligent, interesting? Does the writer's voice come through consistently in the writing? Is the paper consistently written in ONE verb tense?
8.) Does the paper have a title that is interesting or witty? Make suggestions
9.) Overall, what are the greatest strengths of this paper? Which parts could be improved?