Madeline Inquiry Feedback

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Author: Madeline de Mello

Peer: Craig McKenzie

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

The author poses the question: are libraries really useful in todays society? It is expressed very clearly in the introduction as well as the title.

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (Note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author talks a lot about her personal experiences and tells a story somewhat to keep attention. The paper effectively expresses this interest.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

There is a lot of prior knowledge in the paper. Most of this comes from the authors personal experiences and observations in a variety of libraries.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The tone throughout is very informal. I think this is a good way to express the inquiry topic. At the same time though, I think the parenthesis are misused. Usually, when I see parenthesis, I skim over the ideas within them. I think the thoughts are very good and they should be used within a dependent clause offset by commas.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

The tone is very consistent. I think the author does a good job sticking to the informal voice and not shifting.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

This topic is very versatile. The author does a good job discussing libraries in general and specific libraries as well as their specific uses. I think this goes a long way in a paper like this.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

This paper had a lot of ideas in it and while there was some preliminary research,  I think the author could go further. First, there should be more quantitative ideas, such as statistics, introduced throughout the paper to back up claims. This would help support some of the more general ideas and bring magnitude to them. There is also room for more ‘expert’ observations.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author assumes that what is happening here, is happening everywhere. Maybe in areas where not everyone has access to the Internet at home, the library is used more? I think the quantitative data would really help here.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branches of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

Research was used well but it was not really taken full advantage of. I would like to see more quotes, as there are very few. Additionally, I think the information from the sources could be used more in depth.

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

My attention was held pretty well throughout the essay. At some points, because the essay is exploring so many different directions, it does get somewhat hard to follow.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The topic seems to generally stay at the same level of detail throughout. While I think it works as is, by going farther in depth with your research discussion you could do this is you see fit.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

The conculsion functions to tie together loose ends and sumerize the main points of the paper. I think it works well as the conclusion and really emphasizes your view.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

I think it does a great job at not only summarizing but tying together the paper. While theres not much I would add, maybe discussing solutions to your answer since your topic allows for this.