Peer Review Categories:

Rhetorical Awareness
To what extent does this editorial attend to its purpose and its audience's needs? For example, is
the editorial written at an LA or NY Times readers level? Is its focus persuading readers to think,
believe, or do something about an ethical issue in the writers major or discipline?

- This editorial does attend to the audience needs. It is very easy to read and I feel very
well informed as to what the issue is and why the controversy is there. Kathy does a great
job with this, she explains the issue repeatedly in different ways and interprets as to why
it should be allowed as she gives supporting reasons to her thesis.

Ethical Research
To what extent does this editorial 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? Does the editorial cite at least six sources, at
least four of which are peer-reviewed? Are the editorials sources diverse (say, from journals,
videos, and newspapers)? Does it avoid relying too much on a single source?

- Your sources do not follow the MLA or APA format. I would list them in alphabetical
order. Your in-text citations seem to follow properly. Good job on using at least 4 peer
reviewed articles. As its really hard to find those with this topic. Ive done this exact
topic before and its not easy finding them as it is a relatively new controversy.

Support/Evidence
How well does the editorial support any claims it makes with relevant, thorough, and specific
evidence? To what extent are you convinced by the authors arguments? To what extent is the
editorial objective and unbiased?

- I think with a topic like this you should use specific examples. People go through this
moral decision daily and that first-hand experience could really strengthen your
argument. This support can really sway a readers view because theres no support that the
author has gone through this or knows what its like to be under those types of
circumstances.

Organization
How organized is the editorial? For instance, does it use clear, specific organizational devices
(like an argumentative thesis, an introduction paragraph, topic sentences and unified paragraphs,
logical headings, and transitions) to present the papers argument clearly and logically?

- It seems that your organization goes according to the person whos reading, whether
thats the doctor, the individual who argues the opposing view to the person thats
terminally ill. Its also organized to the subject, for example you go through medical
stand points to religious standpoints, this is good, but I think the first part of you paper is
where you need to focus your attention of organization, it feels like just one really long
introduction. Youre almost there, good job Kathy!
Language
Is the language effective, concise, and varied? Does the language respect the diversity of the LA
or NY Times readers (e.g., not using bigoted or biased language)?
- The language used is formal and one that I would read at a college level, however I dont
think your sentences flow all the best. I would try rereading them allowed to focus where
you might be able to adjust your diction. Im not exactly sure why this question is asking
if its bias because it is, but I dont think thats a problem because youre supposed be
bias. Your language itself is really graphic. This is good, especially with such a sensitive
topic.

Design
To what extent does the editorials design conform to the design used in the LA or NY Times?

- I would just change the title. Is Euthanasia moral? is fine, but we know its a moral
issue, maybe adding correct or wrong to the end would suit it better. Maybe try
something more attention grabbing? And add more structure as far as pictures and quotes
go. They seem like they were just kind of placed there. Youre a good writer Kathy. Keep
it up.