A large component of Engl 301, was learning how to deliver effective feedback on a peer’s work. To do this effectively, the writer must ensure they maintain a YOU attitude throughout and deliver both positive and constructive criticism tactfully.
Here is an example of a peer review I completed for a fellow class mate. The original document was a research proposal memo where students were asked to outline their research process and audience for a final formal report. This review provided comprehensive feedback with specific examples to help the student improve their work while highlighting the elements that were done beautifully.
A PDF version of that document can be found here.
To: Jonah Hamilton
From: Samantha Langley
Date: October 10, 2016
Subject: Peer review of formal report proposal
First impression
After a preliminary reading, it is obvious that you understand the daily operations of the Wine Research Center (WRC) well enough to be able to identify a need in this facility. You have identified some major areas of concern as a result of the lack of laboratory oversight. However, the purpose of your report between the Subject statement and Scope statement, identifies two different motivations; stating that “you will create this position” versus “is creating this position a good idea?” Your desire to determine the feasibility is also restated in the concluding statements of this proposal. By having the purpose of this report maintain continuity from start to finish, you will avoid confusing the reader.
Layout and Design
As a reader, this document is very clear about what each section is about and how each flows together. The eye can easily scan the page and does not get overwhelmed by large blocks of text.
There is some conflict from your Subject statement and information in your Scope and Conclusion sections. In your subject you state that you are proposing the creation of a lab manager position. However, in your Scope and Conclusion sections you comment on determining the feasibility of creating this position. Determining the feasibility of something is different from proposing to create something. The rest of your proposal supports your desire to determine if creation of a lab manager position is a good idea or the feasibility of this position creation.
Introduction
What is involved in a research lab and the importance of equipment up keep is stated well in this section. What can be clarified a bit more is the structure of the WRC. For example, when you describe that there are three individually operating laboratories in the WRC and then state “Currently there is no lab manager” do you mean that the individual labs do not have managers or that the WRC does not have a lab manager overseeing all three labs?
In the final sentence of this section you clearly point out some very important benefits of creating this position. This could be expanded to include all the points you mention later in this report such as the identification of safety hazards and maintenance of equipment.
Statement of problem
Beginning sentences with “because” creates an informal tone. In this case, the start of the first sentence contains some unnecessary words that could be eliminated. It is already stated that there is not a laboratory manager in the introduction, so this does not need to be restated. Instead you could begin by saying “Currently, each researcher …”
As someone who does not have a lot of experience in research labs, I am unclear what you mean when you say “Supply orders are placed separately”. Do you mean that they are placed separately between each lab or each researcher? Are there multiple researchers in a single lab at the WRC?
Proposed Solution
You have done an exceptional job keeping this section clear and concise. Well done!
Scope
This section begins by stating that you will be looking to determine the feasibility of creating this position. As described earlier, this should be reflected in the Subject statement. The first area of inquiry should be expanded for clarity. Who wants a new lab manager? Are you looking to determine if the current WRC researchers desire a new level of management?
Methods
It sounds like that you will have plenty of resources for data on this project. Some confusion does arise when you say current lab managers will be interviewed as it is previously stated there were none. Do you mean managers from other laboratories not related to the WRC?
Qualifications/Conclusion
Your previous experience is certainly an asset for this project. Having experience in labs with more levels of management will provide a great comparison to what you are currently experiencing. These other labs may also be a great source of information for you too!
Grammar and Spelling
There are minor grammar and spelling errors worth mentioning here.
- “Furthermore, knowledge of the complex procedures and the required equipment is imperative”
– This sentence needs some clarity. It is unclear if you mean that knowing the complex procedures of the equipment or knowing both the complex laboratory procedures and each piece of equipment in the lab are imperative.
– There are a few areas where sentences are extended using the word “and” twice. This ends up being cumbersome for the reader and are in areas that could easily be simplified by a change of words or addition of a period.
- For example, “Currently there is no lab manager and consequently each researcher is responsible for the upkeep and operation of their respective lab.”
- The first part of this sentence could be reworded to something more simple such as “As a result of having no manager, each researcher is responsible…”
– Another example comes at the end of your report, “Between completing experiments, writing grant applications, and general lab upkeep time is at a premium for WRC employees and action is needed”
- This sentence is difficult to follow as a reader and why “action is needed” is not clear.
– Don’t forget to use commas. Refer to the last two sentences of your Statement of Problem section to see where these commas are needed.
– In the Proposed Solution section “insuring” should be “ensuring”.
- Also in this section “researches” should be “researchers”
General Comments
Overall, you have done an excellent job communicating why creation of this position would be beneficial for the WRC. After clarifying the objective of this report and some details regarding the WRC, I feel the reader will have a clear understanding of what your final report will entail. I hope these comments will be useful in your editing process.