The criteria is the same as the one for the first half, except that now you are looking at the second part of the book. If you are using the 48 Laws of power, you select 5 more laws, if you are using

It’s start here AFFOU Peer Review Writing Across Disciplines Assignment44 unread replies.44 replies.

Purpose of the Assignment: To receive feedback from classmates on a late stage draft of the final paper. To continue to practice peer reviewing and to learn how reviewing writing makes us better writers. Do not use ChatGPT or AI and write in a basic English like sample

Intended Audience: Instructors. Classmates. 

Assignment Description:

• Post a 3/4 complete draft of your final paper on discourse communities https://tacomacc.instructure.com/courses/2431338/assignments/32023198as a word doc or PDF for a peer review. This draft should be almost complete, although it may still need some revision, development, and editing.
• You must post a 3/4 (75%) complete draft in accurate and consistent MLA format and respond to at least two of your classmates to earn full credit for this assignment.
• Before you post, scan through the thread to see who has not yet received feedback or who has received less feedback than others, and prioritize giving feedback to them.
• Remember that the most of the points are earned for this assignment from the reviews.
• Make sure to use the questions below for the peer review. Cut and paste them into the response.
• Make sure to come back and complete your peer review's by 48 hours from the draft deadline. You can earn extra credit for peer review if you review more than two of your classmates' drafts. To earn the points, the peer review posts must be formative, thoughtful feedback that go beyond stating what is or isn't present in the draft and help your classmates move forward with their drafts.

Peer Review Questions

1. Does the intro set up the essay and give background information about the writer's personal discourse community? How can the author improve how they have set up the essay? Where can they add information or be clearer?
2. Is the last sentence of the introduction a thesis statement that answers the big question of what did the writer learn from examining their discourse community? Is this thesis supported throughout the body of the essay?
3. Does the essay identify and examine a specific discourse community that the writer belongs to in their daily life and interacts with the members personally?
4. Does the community exhibit most of Swales’ six characteristics? What characteristics need more detail and evidence for support? Make suggestions where necessary and point out missing information and unclear or vague articulation of the characteristics.
5. Is there analysis in the essay? This could take a couple of forms: a) 1-2 page discussion with examples of the most special or unique thing you've discovered about your community through doing this analysis, or b) this ideas is dispersed throughout the section in which you  examine the features of your discourse community and try to highlight it in each of the paragraphs/sections on lexis, shared goals, etc.)?
6. Does the essay use data from BOTH specific materials from your personal discourse community AND the articles we read for this module as support for their analysis? Make suggestions for improvement if you see places where more references could be made.
7. Note one area or point in the paper that you found to be particularly well done and why.
8. Note one area or point you would change or adjust first and why.
9. Is the paper following MLA? Make suggestions where necessary. Is there a Works Cited (for MLA)  with sources cited correctly? Are accurate and complete in-text citations provided where necessary? Is the paper formatted correctly overall with 2.0 spacing (see the lecture on formatting), no extra spaces, font/font size, etc.? Note problem areas. As necessary, refer to the Purdue Owl https://owl.purdue.edu/