Peer Review practice for DC

Sean Demme

11/9/12

Eng. 1510

Sean Branick Peer review

               I think that, after reading Sean’s paper, I, myself, have a better understanding of the discourse community paper. He does a good job of bringing in a lot of other sources into his paper and still uses the very solid Swales evidence too. So, overall, Sean’s really off to a good start.

               I like the idea, too, in the way that you define every part of a coach being part of a discourse community. I don’t, however, like that you have the paper sectioned off – this strategy seems weak to me. It isn’t a very effective way of showing what you want to your readers. The paper is absolutely fine if you were to just go in paragraph from – and would seem less like I’m reading facts and more of an argument.

               You do a very good job at continuing to go back to your main idea throughout the paper. This is a VERY effective thing to do well because it keeps your ideas relevant to the whole paper. This makes for a stronger set of evidence.

               Now, usually, I hate it when people end papers with a question, but I really do like this one. The conclusion is effective in the way that you take all of the readers new knowledge and put it up against the common knowledge question, “what was that coach thinking” this really brings the paper to a close well.

               I think your paper is solid where it is, no spelling or grammar mistakes really – keep it up.