In project 1, my peer review did not look too deep into what my peers were really trying to say. I also repeated the same surface level feedback, like to “cite Lizzie Widdicombe” multiple times. During the second round of peer review in project 2, I went more in depth concerning the pragmatics of the language used by my peers, as exemplified in comment 10 with me explaining the possible unintended connotations Rachel was implying with her use of quotation marks. When peer reviewing project 2, it was made very clear to me how important it is not only to give criticism for local revision, such as misspellings and grammar, but to give criticism on the essay at large. In our feedback letters, we should have organized our feedback to focus on three categories: ideas, evidence, and organization. I am definitely still improving at my peer reviewing skills. I have a habit of nitpicking very basic grammar and spelling mistakes, but I know that they aren’t important in the realm of peer review at this academic level.
