Author's Name_______________________________
Editor's Name________________________________

Read the paper at least twice and answer the following questions.  Place light marks or numbers on the paper (in pencil if possible) when asked.  Use the other side of this sheet if you need more space.   

1. What are the paper's strengths and weaknesses?  Be specific. 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
2. What is the paper's thesis?  Does the paper take a clear and well developed position on an issue or question?  What is that question and/or position? 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
3. Does the introduction clearly set out the thesis and provide you with a sense of what is to follow?  Underline (lightly, preferably with a pencil) words and phrases that need clarification or more explanation and briefly note what the problem is.  Are all the ideas in the introduction tied together as part of one larger argument?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
4. In the paragraphs that follow, does the paper consistently develop and support the thesis and ideas set out in the introduction?  Indicate which paragraphs fail to advance the paper's thesis.  Number each paragraph and indicate below which paragraphs (by number) fail to advance the thesis or drift away from it.  Could these paragraphs be tied to the thesis or are they entirely disconnected from the paper's larger point?  How so?  Be specific. 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
5. Does the paper make clear how the evidence it provides advances and supports its larger claims?  If not, how could it do so?  Suggest particular sentences and/or phrases that could better connect the evidence to the thesis.  Are there some sections of the paper that have nothing to do with its argument?  Indicate which ones. 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
6. Are the paragraphs linked to each other and to the thesis as set out at the beginning? Suggest transitional phrases and/or sentences where needed. 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
7. What else could the author do to improve the paper?   What could make the argument more convincing? 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
8.  Is the paper clear and detailed on the Hays Office's institutional position and role in changing Scarface?  Does the paper set out what the Hay's Office (and/or other censorship groups) thought was dangerous about the film?  What position does the author take on the validity of these fears?    (Note:  This question may not be relevant to all papers.)
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
9. Finally, if the paper addresses a question about children and/or technology, what specific points does the author make that speak to these issues?  Are these parts of the paper well integrated into older sections (the production history of Scarface, for example)?