"Race," Writing, and Difference
EN 105/Stokes

Guidelines for Formal Critiques

These critiques should be at least one page in length, and no longer than two pages.  They are due on the day that the paper is being workshopped. You should bring in two copies: one for me and one for the writer of the essay.

In short, it is your job as a reader to help the writer make his or her essay a better one.  You should use the "Criteria for Grading" as your guide, paying particular attention to focus and organization.  Since you're commenting on a draft that you know is going to be significantly revised, don't spend a lot of time on things like style and grammar.  Go straight for the big stuff.  It may be helpful to ask yourself the following question: What are the three most important things I can tell this writer about his or her paper?

What do I mean by "big stuff"?

  • Does the author have a main idea and does he or she stick to it?  (As a test, compare the first and last paragraphs.  Has the writer stayed on topic, or has the main idea or point of view shifted during the course of the essay?) 
  • Is the main idea clearly stated in a thesis statement?
  • Is the thesis too broad or too narrow?
  • Does the author make defensible assertions and supply adequate details to support these assertions?
  • Which assertions aren't fully persuasive?  Where do I want more evidence and support?
  • Does each paragraph have a topic sentence, and does the writer stick to it?  Or, do some paragraphs lack coherence because the writer shifts too quickly from one idea to the next.
  • Is the relationship between the thesis and topic sentences always clear?  Does the writer use transitions effectively to highlight this relationship?
It's not merely your job to point out things that don't work; you're also responsible for suggesting paths for revision.  For criticism to be constructive it must be joined with possible solutions.  Ask questions that will help the writer clarify his or her argument.

Critique Responsibilities (Group numbers correspond to the Workshop Schedule.  For example, if you are in Group II, the subject of your formal critique will be the person with a "II" beside his or her name on the Workshop Schedule.)

Group I: Kevin Sargo, Amy Bergstraesser, Frank Cabrera, Lucy Hochman

Group II: Deandra Wint, Ann Cascella, Javier Calderon, Christine Kemp

Group III: Alex Robbins, Randy Abreu, Minnie Nguyen, Terry-Ann Howell

Group IV: James O'Connell, Evan Jones, Willa Pohlman

Back to EN 105 Home Page