For this paper, I’m asking you to reread your original paper carefully (taking into account my comments) and to fill out the revision checklist that I’ve provided.
DIRECTIONS: Reread the paper you’ve chosen to revise and complete the checklist. The list should help shape your revision plan and to guide the revisions you will make to the paper.
___ Summary of other author’s main argument(s) is efficiently and clearly stated in the introduction or first 2 paragraphs of the paper
___ Summary is clear, but it could be further simplified.
___ There is a summary, but it is not very accurate, it’s too long, or its not in the introduction.
___ It’s difficult to find the summary.
___ Thesis is sharply focused AND offers a compelling, thoughtful argument in response to the topic.
___ Thesis is clear and specific.
___ There is a thesis, but it is either too broad, or it says something obvious.
___ It’s difficult to find the thesis in the paper.
Development and Use of Evidence
___ The paper contains specific, compelling evidence for its claims (illustrative examples, connections to the ideas of others—e.g., readings or films from this class). All evidence presented is relevant to the paper’s thesis and supporting claims and is thoroughly discussed. Proper citation procedures are followed, as appropriate.
___ The paper contains enough evidence to support the paper’s claims, though the evidence may be rather general. Evidence presented is relevant to the paper’s thesis and appropriate connections/conclusions are drawn from it. Proper citation procedures are followed, as appropriate.
___ There is an attempt to incorporate evidence into the paper’s discussion of its topic and to discuss
its relevance to the paper’s thesis, but the paper lacks full development. OR the paper does not follow the mechanics for proper citation of debts to sources.
___ Evidence or examples included and discussion of these are minimal. OR there is little relationship between the evidence and the paper’s claims. OR the paper rambles or is incoherent. OR the writer does not acknowledge debts to the ideas of others, including written sources, or does so inappropriately.
___ The paper is well-structured and demonstrates the writer’s ability to anticipate the reader’s need for information or explanation. The paper contains clear transitions among ideas that provide “signposts” or “bridges” for the reader to follow the paper’s argument
___ The paper is, in general, effectively organized, though the links between paragraphs and ideas
might be implied, rather than specifically stated.
___ The paper has a serviceable structure, but there are digressions, or there are paragraphs/arguments
that could be moved to provide greater clarity or a better emphasis.
___ It is difficult to follow the line of reasoning in this paper.
Grammar, Mechanics, and Style
___ Paper conveys a distinctive voice that clearly belongs to the writer. Sentences contain well-
chosen words and phrases, are grammatically accurate, and are rhetorically sophisticated (they are flexible and varied in type and length).
___ The paper contains sentences that are clear, concise, and grammatically correct. The sentence
structures are reasonably varied.
___ The paper’s sentences are almost always grammatically correct. They tend to be simple in
structure and lack variety.
___ The paper contains significant or distracting errors in grammar or mechanics, or word choice
and/or tone is inappropriate for the paper’s subject.
I’ve added the comment and the original paper that I want to revise