Developing meaningful critiques of your colleagues' work is central to the scholarly process -- and so, these evaluations are part of your participation grade. You are not merely helping your colleagues write a better research paper, you are demonstrating your own ability to read critically. Type up detailed answers (including references to particular page numbers in the paper you are evaluating) to each of the following questions.

Thesis and Structure:

1. What is the paper about (topic)? Is there a clear, concise discussion of the context of this topic? [See Rampolla pp. 28-29]
2. What is the thesis? [See Rampolla pp. 29-32]
3. How is the paper structured to argue its thesis (general outline)? Where (in which paragraphs) does the argument seem to stray from the thesis? [See Rampolla pp. 32-36]
4. How effective is the conclusion? Does it merely restate the points or does it state the most important conclusions and why they are significant? Does it introduce new ideas or facts not discussed earlier? [See Rampolla p. 36]
5. How effective is the author's word choice and grammar? Is the paper written consistently in the past tense -- using active voice? [See Rampolla pp. 36-40]

Historical Arguments:

1. Does the paper include a consideration of the historical arguments that are in the general topic of Southern conservatism (e.g., Kirk or Genovese)? Does it include discussion of the general texts of that subtopic?
2. Does the author anticipate counterevidence and counterarguments? is this section effective? [See Rampolla pp. 35-36]
3. Can you tell in the narrative of the paper that the author is using only a few sources in the bibliography? Is there a balance between the use of primary and secondary sources?

Use of Evidence:

1. How does the author use the quotations from primary sources? are they analyzed within the narrative or simply used as inset "wallpaper" to fill space?
2. Are the authors of secondary sources presented in the narrative along with their particular "angle" on the problem -- or are their words continually cited or paraphrased as part of a narration of facts without any attempt at analysis?
3. What parts of the paper do not use any primary source evidence? or use inappropriate evidence?
4. Where has the author presented primary or secondary source evidence without adequately citing its source? [See Rampolla pp. 41-51]

Back to Handouts Page