Dear John, First off Id like to address that this is not a break-up letter, contrary to the opening statement

establishing this as a Dear John letter. As per the standard guidelines for a peer review for a rough draft, I have composed this letter in order to make you aware of what I have found out upon reviewing your essay. In the category of rhetorical knowledge you were to include well defined criteria, the establishment of your own ethos, acknowledgement of counter-claims, context for their topic/subjects, and the establishment of a clear audience (or a specific audience). For rhetorical knowledge Im afraid that I need to stress how lacking the product you presented to me is in content. You may have shown me criteria in person, but there was not any evident in the draft, so I cannot award points despite how I knew that you used a set of critera. I cannot give you points for establishing an ethos because the format you gave me showed me no idea of who you are as an author and why we as the audience can trust you as an authority on the matter, but if you were to state where you got your research and let them know how long you took to deliver the facts that you did then you might be able to have points in this category. The list format that you gave also lacks any acknowledgements to counterclaims. I can state that you did use evidence to try and support your claim and I feel that that can help show that you are in tune with the mass audiences opinions on the matter, but without a specific claim to how it fits your criteria (which is again not stated) It provides little contextual support as to how that evidence can show your point other than that the information you present is a fact about the series. There was no context for your topics given other than the initial title of best 3 comedic titles in television in the last 5 years. If I was grading this, I would not be able to give you points for this category. For critical thinking reading and writing you were to compare at least 3 items of the same kind, follow conventions of the review sub-genre, make sure that any logical fallacies (if present) are justified in the final memo, and uses primary and/or secondary research to support claims. I can state that in this category you were more successful than in rhetorical knowledge. You did compare at least 3 items of the same time by reviewing 3 comedic programs, but, by showing a bulleted list as your rough draft, I cannot state that you followed conventions of the review genre. Reviews can have bulleted segments depending on the audience and place of posting, but in this subgenre (classroom assignment/essay) it isnt an appropriate device to use. I feel like the project is subjected to the logical fallacy of personal bias because of the nature of the project itself and because you did not establish how you would remain objective or qualify your statements. I do however feel though that you do receive points for using primary and/or secondary research to support your claims, but in your final draft I would suggest that you show what sources you used for the information you gathered in order to strengthen ethos, such as when use showed that you were using nielson ratings to establish that many people thought of the show as being of high quality in the case of How I Met Your Mother. In this paper I feel that your glow is that you did a good amount of research in order to justify your claims, but a grow would be that you need to go more into detail of what your criteria is. Your research will definitely help your justify your claims and I am looking forward to see more from this paper once it has been refined Your classmate and peer Jeffery Jedi Ludwig