Research Paper Peer Review by Sean McNicholl on Theodore Moll:

Rhetorical Awareness: Mature

 ‘Addresses the situation completely’
 You address the topic really well and develop your ideas whilst being aware of your
audience of Undergrad students and/or GT faculty.
 However, I would have liked to have seen some personal insight such as an example
where you personally experienced climate change.

Stance: Competent
 ‘Makes an explicit and straightforward argument that does not oversimplify the
problem; explores at least one implication of the argument in depth.
 You argue the impacts of these statements and the consequences of ignoring the
scientific data really well.
 I would have liked to have seen more development on the potential consequences
specifically related to the points you have made. I.E. Trump ignoring climate change ‘will
likely lead to x and x’ then go into the facts to assist.

Development of Ideas: Competent

 ‘Evidence and Analysis are substantive; they support the argument and related claims,
but are mostly predictable’
 Ideas are developed and backed up with supporting data from a range of sources,
although there is no visible data for the opposing argument.
 Would like to see an image or a table illustrating a piece of data related to false facts
about climate change by politicians.

Organization: Mature
 ‘Asserts and sustains a claim that develops logically and progressively; adapts typical
organizational schemes for the context; achieves substantive coherence’
 I feel as though the development of Trumps’ statements regarding the LA fires should
take place towards the beginning of the paper rather than at the end as it feels
disconnected to the initial quote.
 Generally, flows well and jumps from data and sources into developed paragraphs.
Would like to see a more distinct entrance to each ‘chapter’ of the paper rather than
flowing through so much. I.E. Intro, Basis, Data, Development etc.

Conventions: Mature
 ‘Meets expectations in a virtually flawless manor’
 Citations need to be in the MLA citations format
 Not much to say here except perhaps could utilize more scientific jargon but good use of
political jargon.

Design for Medium: Competent

 The design of the research paper is good in structure; however, there was a touch of
finesse in design that I felt was missing compared to reading other drafts.
 Use of data is well placed to support the arguments but would benefit from quoting
specifically from the graphs such as the myth of cooling dates etc.
 Oral Presentation Peer Review by Sean McNicholl on Theodore Moll:

Rhetorical Awareness: Mature

 ‘Addresses the situation completely’
 The script does a really good job of breaking down the channel and its intentions. Offers
some insight into how even though it is funny in nature, it lacks any rhetorical tools
when attempting to convince a climate change denier but rather uses their own rhetoric
against them.

Stance: Competent
 ‘Makes an explicit and straightforward argument that does not oversimplify the
problem; explores at least one implication of the argument in depth.
 You (and Jreg) argue the case for the humor utilized in a clear but perhaps a little too
simply. I believe you could have done this at the beginning of the presentation and then
talk about the impacts of it.
 You outline the purpose of the content creator and how Jreg wishes not to convince anti-
climate change believers but to poke fun at them and this is done very well.

Development of Ideas: Developing/competent

 Ideas are laid out to the listener; however, I believe you could develop a point or two
more deeply by looking for a not so obvious or subconscious impact on the listener.
 Again, the development of the purpose of Jreg is really well done and should remain as
is.

Organization: Mature
 ‘Asserts and sustains a claim that develops logically and progressively; adapts typical
organizational schemes for the context; achieves substantive coherence’
 The script is well laid out and organized. Would like to see perhaps a few examples
where the tone of your voice is specified i.e. in a ‘sarcastic voice’.
 I liked how you utilized the use of a second participant after your introduction and
followed up with your own analysis. Would like to see these parts split into two where
each section focuses on a specific point. The humor and the structure of the video and
the impacts of the video.

Conventions: Mature
 ‘Meets expectations in a virtually flawless manor’
 There are little to no errors in the script and is concise as well as easy to listen to.
 Feels a little too serious for a podcast, would like to see a bit more casual language
compared to the research paper. Perhaps a quote also from the video to assist your
points.

Design for Medium: Competent

 Again, as previously mentioned, would like to see another back and forth between the
two speakers as well as some additional notes on tone of voice as this is the primary
medium of communication in this work.
 The script was designed to fit the genre and was suitable for this task with no tangents
unrelated to the genre.