Peer Review
Peer Editing Worksheet—Scholarly Article Analysis
Name of Reviewers: Tasnia Chowdhury
(FOR Keanu Trellis)
- Is the title specific to the analysis/topic?
Yes, the title is specific to the analysis and clearly discusses the focus which is the topic of the
scholarly article (tthe running capabilities of Australopithecus afarensis), and the fact that it is being
analyzed by the writer. - Does the first paragraph sufficiently introduce the article (for example, author’s name, journal and
article titles, date)?
The first paragraph does sufficiently introduces the article topic and is structured well but lacks the details
listed such as the author’s name, the journal title, and the publication date. - Is the thesis (last sentence of introduction) the main points of the analysis? How can it be improved?
The thesis does not explicitly state the main points of the analysis, but provides a summary of the article’s
content and structure. - Does the analysis of the article include the following: format of article, voice (active/passive), tenses,
word choice, content of each section? Does the analysis need to be developed or edited for clarification?
Is every section of the article analyzed?
The analysis covers the format, voice, tenses, and word choice effectively, and focuses greatly on
the introduction, methods, and results portions of the article. A deeper analysis on the discussion
section may improve the paper. More examples of word choice and tone could also be provided
if felt needed. - Are there many grammar, spelling, or punctuation mistakes? Give examples. Are “you” and “I”
pronouns avoided?
The analysis does about “you” and “I” pronouns and maintains a formal tone.
First paragraph: “Australopithecus afarensis, also known as ‘Lucy’”
“the technical data in the methods section is sufficient enough”. The “enough “can be removed. - Overall, state one thing the analysis does well and one thing that needs to be improved.
The analysis effectively examined the structure, voice, and other scientific conventions and
showed the writer’s understanding of their usage in scholarly articles.
The analysis could be improved by providing a clearer thesis statement and expanding on the
discussion and conclusion of the article.
