Peermark review and assessment practices

Peer Mark Review

Discuss the introduction. Is the work being evaluated clearly presented in the thesis statement? Is the length of the intro too long or too short? Give suggestions for improving the introduction paragraph.

The writer begins with a general statement and gradually leads the reader to the more specific discussion about Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. Although the thesis is not highly specific, it does establish the author's main point. That point is that Full Metal Jacket is "one of the best representations of the Vietnam era United States Marine Corps," (1). The introduction is brief and to the point, but not too short. I would not change too much about the introduction, because it is a short paper that does not warrant a more specific paragraph.

At which point did you feel most interested by this piece? When least? Explain

I felt interested by the essay right away, because I have a personal interest in film and especially classics like Full Metal Jacket. Having not seen the film, I was curious to see what the writer had to say, and why he or she felt compelled to write about the Kubrick classic. I wanted to know what the student's take on the movie would be, versus what I can read easily online by critics.

I also appreciated the fact that the author used trivia that might not otherwise be incorporated into an essay. For example, the author starts the second paragraph with information about how the technical advisor to Kubrick, R. Lee Ermey, "insisted he should play the part of Gunnery Sargent Hartmann," (1). It was not the first time Ermey had acted, but it was still interesting to know that he felt so strongly about the character and the film as a whole. Ermey did seduce Kubrick with his performance in prior movies, and the anecdote was inspiring. I remained interested throughout the entire essay. However, by the third paragraph I started to wonder where the essay was headed. It seemed like the author strayed from the thesis, and was actually more interested in talking about "how it was made" than why the movie was "one of the best representations of the Vietnam era United States Marine Corps," (1-2).

3. Could the writer of this paper have omitted certain passages to make this paper more concise? If yes, which ones? Should more have been added?

The third paragraph of the essay could be edited so that the information at the beginning was replaced by more data about why the film was a realistic or accurate portrayal of the Marines during the Vietnam era. Eventually, the author gets to the point in that paragraph. The author states, "speaking from experience, Ermey's portrayal of a Marine drill instructor was perfect," (2). Knowing this, I understand why the author spent so much time on Ermey's character. The author should have told his readers earlier that he was writing from experience.

4. Discuss the criteria used to evaluate the topic. Are the areas of evaluation clearly presented? Is there enough detail to support the topic sentence arguments? Give suggestions for improvement.