Introduction
Read the whole project through once, and make brief notes of any points that strike you as you go along. Now read the project more carefully a second time, and use the questions below to guide your responses.

We grade this peer-review as part of your class participation. Please approach it seriously and take sufficient time to respond thoroughly. When you have completed your review, e-mail a copy to the writer and to both of us.

• Write down quickly, in words or short phrases, your initial reactions to the project.
  
• How well does the project meet the basic criteria set out in the assignment? Point out any discrepancies to the writer whose work you're reviewing
  
• What's the writer's main argument in this project? How easy/difficult was it to identify this argument? Suggest ways to clarify the argument, if necessary.
  
• How successful do you find the writer's use of screens to organize the material? How does this organization add meaning to the project as you read/interact with it?
  
• How successfully does the writer integrate ideas from, and references to, the class readings? What additional ideas/sources would you suggest to help the writer sharpen her/his argument/thesis?
  
• How do you respond to the writing in this project? What are the memorable ideas? Where do you notice striking figuaritve language (metaphor, similes, analogies, etc.)?
  
• Where were you lost in the project (either through imprecise language or confusing orgnization/navigational architecture) and suggest how the writer might help the reader more?