Peer Review

Ruby’s feedback was the first I looked at, and it was very simple. There were clarifications which have been made. I also have the bad habit of not inserting dates which are necessary for the reader to follow the story through time, which has since been put into the appropriate places in my paper. After meeting with her one-on-one, I also have ideas for where to expand my paper, giving the reader more detail and a more convincing argument.

Dr. Shermer’s feedback, though difficult to read, was much more detailed. Her hate of passive writing appeared on nearly every page which is something I will be going through this week. The majority of the changes I will be making due to Dr. Shermer’s feedback will be in the introduction. She pointed out that there is no reason to have two explanations of gentrification, especially when the first explanation is so low level as to be boring. Dr. Shermer also agreed with Ruby’s sentiment of using dates and constructing the essay so that it follows the linear time of history rather than bouncing back and forth.

Sarah’s feedback followed the lines of Dr. Shermer’s comments. A majority of comments addressed passive voice and poor wording, which was one of the strengths of her paper. As my paper uses a persuasive voice for at least the beginning and end, I intend to use some of her methods of calling on the senses to invoke stronger feelings from the reader. I believe making these improvements will really drive the point of my paper home.