PEER REVIEW DOC:labina-food-essay-copy
Learning outcome states that “Be able to critique their own and others’ work by emphasizing global revision early in the writing process and local revision later in the process”. I have never peer-reviewed an essay before I came to UNE, but I feel I was able to effectively review an essay early on. In Labina’s essay, I made many global revision suggestions for her essay. I found that a major edit Labina needed to work on was developing her ideas. For example on page one of her essay, I felt she didn’t give the reader enough background information and detail about her favorite meal “manta”. Manta is a dish most have not heard of, and it is important for the reader to understand and picture the dish in their mind because that is what her whole essay is about. My making this global revision it gave Labina’s essay more meaning. On page two of Labina’s essay, she used information from an outside source. In the comment section I wrote, “Who is this? What are his qualifications? Where did this information come from? These are important questions to answer when quoting or using outside information.” This was a major global revision Labina needed to make because the information seems unreliable to the reader if you do not tell them where it is coming from and if its reliable. By making this global edit Labinas claim seems further supported with reliable facts. With global revisions comes local revisions. These include grammar and spelling mistakes, I made a few of these comments as well on Labina’s essay. On page one I suggested changing the word “achieve” to “receive”. I felt it made more sense. Another local revision I made was on page 2 I deleted the word “consequently” because I felt that it wasn’t needed for the sentence to sound better. I made other similar edits, where I added or took out words to make the sentence flow better. I feel like these examples of global and local revisions demonstrate how I have effectively accomplished learning outcome 4.
