Bobby Hershey Peer Edit

Peer review sheet for 3ResProj

Dr. Archibald’s ENGL 110

Peer Editing Process: The 3Research Project

Reviewers name:  Christopher Lucas

Paper author’s name:  Bobby Hershey

Has the writer written a research paper . . .

[medium]

_X _that joins a conversation (where there is a controversy), that listens to others who have been talking about the topic (old and new docs & sources), and then posits a unique idea(s) in an effort to extend the discussion?

__Or, is the paper substantially a report (a "data-dump") of what others have said?

__Or, is it an extended opinion piece that gives no support for the writer's ideas?

__Or, is it merely plagiarized? (this item trumps everything else and results in an "F" in the course.

Comment:  Overall the paper presents a good argument, while using facts to back up all statements.

[opening & introduction]

_X_that contains an opening to the paper that hooks the reader and introduces the writer and his/her purpose for writing the essay? Is there a forecast of what the paper will contain?

Comment:   Paper presents an introduction and a forecast.

[use of research question & thesis]

_X_where they employ their research question that then is answered in a thesis and set forward in the paper?

Comment:

[use of sources]

_X_where the writer introduce his/her sources, summarize, paraphrase, and/or quote them, and then provide a comment for each one that advances their thesis?

[paragraph construction]

_X_that contains an argument that flows--claim, support, result?

Comment:

[conclusion]

_X_that contains a conclusion that works to sum up or extend the ideas of the paper?

Comment:

[works cited and in-text citations]

_X_that contains well integrated sources, a Works Cited page, and In-text citations conform to the MLA format?

Comment:

Works cited page needs work.

[sentence-level rhetoric]

_X_where the writer has edited the paper carefully for grammatical and punctuation errors?

Comment:

Presentation Feedback

Dear Group Members, please review my presentation and use the critique sheet Dr. Archibald has provided to give me feedback, so that I can improve my presentation.

Sources

Matejka, Michal, Sandra Onderstal, and Anja de Waegenaere. The Effectiveness of Caps on Political Lobbying. N.p.: CentER, 2002. Print.


Feuer, Alan. For Ex-Lobbyist Abramoff, a Multimedia Effort at Redemtion. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Conference Notes

This past week I had a very productive conference with Dr. Archibald. I figured out how to give my perspective, and how to extend my paper's details. He also gave me an article about the return of Abramoff and how I can add that into my paper. It was very constructive and very helpful. I plan on revising it really soon, and fixing everything he discussed with me.

Sources for the 3ResProj

Bealle, Jackson. Why lobbyists negatively influence the US legislative process. N.p.: n.p., 2007. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <www.helium.com>

Most of my sources i found using the advanced search options in Google. First I searched "political lobbying", then "positive" or "negative." Using advanced search option, I decreased the amount of hits by more than half.

Conference Notes

In my meeting with Professor Archibald, he told me that my topic was too narrow and that I should open it up. My new topic is Political Lobbying, he discussed with me how I should come about in writing this, and that I should describe both the good and bad perspectives of political lobbying using Jack Abramoff as a bad perspective. The meeting only lasted about ten minutes.

ResProj paper ideas

Although politics is very essential in the U.S., it is sometimes very corrupt.

The first step to being corrupt is to have the power to be corrupt.

In many ways these scandals show what politics is not supposed to be, its not meant to be corrupt, or about favorites.

After reading these quotes from my 2Syn paper what do you think about these topic ideas? Do you understand what I am getting at? Which one sounds best to use for the 3ResProj? Why?