Follow these steps to offer feedback to your partner group. Appoint one person to take notes on each of these questions. This group member will email the responses to each question to the group that is being reviewed and to the instructor. Leave your website open on two laptops at your initial station. Then, move to the new station where you will be reviewing another group’s project.

Take 25-30 minutes to work your way through the peer review document, then meet in person to (briefly) go over the most important aspects of your feedback. Even-numbered groups will receive feedback first, then odd-numbered groups


Open the website. What feedback can you offer on the URL?

Does it describe the project and appeal to an audience? Is it memorable? A good example: A bad example:


Look at the landing page. What feedback can you offer on their use of verbal and visual elements to convey the website’s purpose to a particular audience?

Do the visual and verbal elements of the page complement each other? If you couldn’t see the images, could the words alone give a sense of the project’s audience and purpose? If you couldn’t read the words, could the images do the same?

Does the tone of the writing match the formality of the rhetorical situation? For instance, a fandom website would be more rhetorically effective if it uses an informal tone, but a teaching module will be more rhetorically effective with a formal tone.


Look at the navigation and layout. What feedback can you offer on the experience of finding your way around the site?

Is the navigation intuitive? Do all the links work? Are the menus consistent across pages? Does the website feel like a unified whole, rather than a collection of unrelated elements?

Does the website have a structure, with some ideas subordinated to other, larger ideas? Or, does the website simply place 15 tabs side-by-side with no apparent sorting or organization?


Read the introductions (if present) to the video essays and watch the essays. What feedback can you offer in terms of argument?

How clearly do they explain their purpose, argument, or question?

How successful are they at showing the project’s relevance (i.e. why anyone would care about the argument or use the resource)?

Do the videos use evidence to support their conclusion?


Read the blog posts (or other written element) contributed individually to the website. What feedback can you offer regarding the effectiveness of these posts?

Catch errors in conventions (i.e. grammar, style, citation, spelling), but also think about if the writing improves the overall quality of the site. How does it fit into the web project as a whole? Does it feel like an afterthought, or is it clearly connected to the purpose of the project?


Look at the resource page/works cited page. What feedback can you offer in terms of the page’s credibility?

Are there simply links dropped onto a page with no explanation? Or, does the group explain why each link is relevant to an audience interested in the topic of the web project?

Are the verbal and visual elements of the website properly represented in this page, or did they forget to cite some of the resources they used to create the web project?


What holistic feedback can you offer to the group? What seems particularly effective to you about the website? What could be improved?

Categories: Renaissances