In-class peer review:  during class, exchange print copies of your first paper and read your fellow student's paper through once.  Then turn to the blog post version of the paper and use the comment feature of the blog  to leave feedback on your fellow student's work.  Re-read the paper and begin with a general comment on the strengths and weakness of the paper and then answer the following questions:

1. Does the paper describe in detail the person, idea, system or device the author has chosen to write on and cover:
   • what the idea was and why it was important and how it was different from ideas already in circulation AND/OR
   • how the device or system was designed and functioned, who developed it and when, what need(s) it met, how it was different from the alternatives available at the time and why it was important  AND/OR
   • What the person or persons did, what ideas, systems or devices they introduced, and why their contributions were important. 
     
2. Are there any sections of the paper that wander from the main point(s) or aren’t tied to it with transitions? Be specific and suggest ways the author could tie his or her points together better.  Should some points be cut because they are irrelevant (with or without better transitions)? 
   
3. Are their any additions that would benefit the paper?  Do any points need elaboration or more evidence?
   
4. Does the paper note crucial dates and is it specific about who did what, how a system or device worked, etc.?
   
5. Does the paper cite pages in Isaacson AND cite part number/name of The Machine episode) as sources?
   
6. Does the paper include at least two quotes or paraphrases with in-text citations and a Works Cited/References page.  Do signal phrases introduce the quotes or paraphrases and are they integrated into the author's own point or argument?  Are the in-text cites and the Works Cited (MLA) or References (APA) pages done properly?  Review the sample papers in Hacker as you work on this point. 
   
7. Does the paper conclude with a final paragraph proposing a research question that could structure a longer paper on the person, system, device or idea?  Before you comment on the research question, review Hacker, pp. 91-2 on choosing a focused, challenging, and grounded research question.