Christina Chavez

Kathryn Montgomery

Shae Van Buskirk

Concussion Peer Review

Rhetorical Awareness

To what extent does this definition consistently and correctly use quotation marks and

MLA-, APA-, or Wikipedia-style in-text (number system) and end-of-text (reference list)

citations for all sources, whether quoted directly or paraphrased? Are the definitions

sources diverse (say, from journals, videos, and newspapers)? Does it avoid relying too

much on a single source?

From what I saw in your definition, most of the work or information from your sources was

paraphrased and summarized rather than quoted, which I tend to like more, because it shows that

you put in the effort to read the passages and get the information you needed rather than a sort of

copy and paste. It seems that you all cited your sources for everything you used. You also did

have quite a few sources, it does look like they werent very diverse, granted I believe all of them

were from articles. But, you did use all of your sources instead of relying on one. Good job.

Ethical Research

To what extent does this definition attend to its purpose and its audience's needs? For

example, is the definition written at a general readers level? Does it define more

specialized terms and ideas? Is its focus informing or educating the reader?

The writing was definitely written at a general reading level; making it easy to read and
understand. Did not use too many difficult or diverse words that needed to be defined, and if you

did you defined or explained them well. I believe that your use of information was very

educating and reliable to the reader. Overall, from reading your definition, I understood exactly

what Concussion meant.

Design

To what extent does the definitions design conform to the design used on Wikipedia pages?

I liked the simplicity of your design. The bolded headlines stood out. You followed the

Wikipedia model well with the major headlines and keeping everything left centered. However,

unlike the Wikipedia model, you didnt have any sub headlines. You just put all the information

under each big headline. For example, for the Signs and Symptoms section. You said in the first

sentence multiple areas of the body are affected. What if you created a couple different sub

headlines for each part of the body affected and out in key information? It might sort the paper a

little bit and make it easy for the reader to find the exact information he or she needs.

Collaboration

To what extent are the definitions style and substance unified? In other words, does it

appear as though one writer composed it, or like a group of people patched it together?

I think your team thrived at collaboration. Everything flowed together very nicely. If I didnt

know any better, I would have no idea that three different people wrote this paper. There is no

indication at all of separation. Each section builds upon the previous. All the individual research

came together, nothing contradicted anything else. Fantastic job!

Support/Evidence

How well does the definition support any claims it makes with relevant, thorough, and

specific evidence? To what extent is the definition objective and unbiased?

The information is presented in an unbiased manner and support their claims with information

and figures. The writers present the symptoms of a concussion well but I think there needs to be

more discussion on what happens to the body physiologically to help support their claims more.

For example, the writers use the word jarring to explain what happens to the brain when a

concussion occurs. If jarring was explained in more detail, then it would help the readers

understand even more what is happening during a concussion. Also there is no section on the

history of concussions or the etymology of the word.

Organization

How organized is the definition? For instance, does it use clear, specific organizational

devices (like a one-sentence definition followed by a general introduction, followed again by

subdivided topics; topic sentences to organize paragraphs, logical headings, and

transitions) to define the word and to tie ideas and topics together logically and

seamlessly? Are paragraphs are unified?

Its good that there are sub divisions with logical headings throughout the definition, the

headings are logical and relevant to the word the writers are presenting. The introduction

paragraph does not properly introduce the definition and its sub definitions that the paper goes

into later. The introduction paragraph would be a good background section after a introduction

of all the sub headings and your one word definition.

Some paragraphs have adequate topic sentences that explain the overall idea of the paragraph

while others do not. For example under signs and symptoms, the topic sentence is great, it is

short, concise, to the point and explains what is to follow within the paragraph. The topic

sentence for diagnosis only explains part of what the entire paragraph is about. Maybe it would

be beneficial to break this paragraph up into two because the writers are discussing multiple

topics.

The use of the table under severity is a great way to explain the information in a way that is easy

to read and understand but there needs to be captions under each figure including the tables to

help readers understand even more what the table (or caption) means.

Language

Is the language effective, concise, and varied? Does the language respect the diversity of

Wikipedias readers (e.g., not using bigoted or biased language)?

The writers did a great job using varied language throughout the paper. Although some of the

information is not concise well enough to easily follow. For example, under signs and symptoms,

there is a run on sentence that is almost the length of the paper. It is better to convey the same

information in a short and clear way otherwise readers may get lost in all the rest of the

information. There are also many grammatical errors throughout the paper that make it difficult

to understand what the writers are trying to present.