Peer Feedback Questions

1. Whose draft are you responding to?
2. Does the author identify a specific person in the To: line in the memo? Do they follow the appropriate memo format as in the sample WP #3?
3. How thorough is the author’s discussion of the common ground held between the audience and author? Why?
4. How effectively does the author identify an exigency and discuss it is as a shared problem for the author and the audience (and larger organization)? Why?
5. What evidence best supports the author’s case and why?
6. Does the author anticipate and discuss the audience’s likely response to the exigency and solution? How effectively do they do so?
7. How effectively does the author link the benefits of their proposed resolution to the goals of the author, audience, and the larger organization (the ripple effect)? Why?
8. What areas could be better explained, more fully developed, or improved, and why?
9. What should the author prioritize for revision when they revise and why?

The two articles that are Grace Henderson and Aubrey Patrick answer the above questions separately.

WP #3 Rogerian Argument: Self Evaluation

1. What was difficult about writing WP #3 and why?
2. What are the specific strengths of your WP #3 and why? 
3. What could be improved in your WP #3 and why?
4. What constraints did you face in writing WP #3 and how did you “adapt to your audience” as a result?
5. What specific revisions did you make to your WP #3, and why?
6. __(Name of Colleague)_ gave me the best feedback because _________. When I revised, I changed _______ because ___________.
7. Will you mail your WP #3 memo to its intended audience? Why or why not?

Read WP#3 to answer the above questions separately.