The point of peer reviews is to work together to locate what these papers are trying to say and then give informed, respectful suggestions to help the writer say it more clearly. Use these questions to help guide the discussion, but please be brief in answering them. The primary purpose of your peer review is to have a discussion.
1.) What is the thesis claim or question? Is this argument claim arguable (as in, could someone disagree with it)? Is the case claim interesting (in other words, does the thesis claim challenge or shed new light on the “official narrative” of events that students often read in history textbooks)? Does the claim directly answer the prompt? Does the claim address how a particular conflict, change, or pattern relates to the themes of violence, religion/ideology, or technological innovation?
The thesis question is concerned with the adverse effects of the various types violence right from the ancient times forcing members of particular society to migrate to other regions for the sake of peace. This thesis statement is unlikely to trigger disagreements because violence is mostly known to cause adverse impacts on the people. Violence itself is a harmful activity, and therefore it would be irrational trying to derive any good out of it. Therefore, focusing on the negative impacts of violence is a much better step than its advantages since the pros are less likely to outweigh the cons. The thesis is relatively interesting in that it outlines how various kinds of violence led to migration, not necessarily physical violence but also racial and religious violence. This broad perspective enables the reader to derive the broader meaning of the term violence that exceeds the physical fights and killings (Francis). The claim directly addresses the major outcome of violence which is migration and has dealt with two themes of violence such as racial violence and other religious conflicts.
2.) Does the thesis paragraph address all the main argument points: claim, evidence, and significance?
The section clearly elaborates on migration as the negative impact of violence in the historical era with an emphasis on the racial violence between the whites and the black people. There is also evidence of religious differences playing a significant role in racial discrimination related violence. The significance of the thesis is illustrated by the precise outline to make the reader understand why and how violence affects societies and how migration changes the lives of individuals as they are forced to leave their native land to other new places.
3.) How is the paper organized regarding its evidentiary paragraphs? What are the logical links between the sections? How are they organized? Where does the structure feel coherent, and where random?
The paragraphs are well organized even though some are too short. Each paragraph has at least addressed a particular issue at a time. There is a logical flow of the articles but from the secondary source sections, there is a little bit of inconsistency. The major theme of the articles is religious differences and how it resulted in violence but at some point when the writer talks of eating of flesh and men being forced to marry their sons, it feels like a random issue (Frankopan). It would be preferable to capture all the religious matters in a coherent manner and then later include the mentioned issue under cultural differences as another source of violence that can consequently lead to migration.
4.) In the analytical paragraphs, what are the topic sentences (supporting claims)? Do the paragraphs feel focused or do they wander? Where does the support of the subject sentences feel complete and fair? Where incomplete or unfair? Does the writer offer analysis based on primary source evidence, rather than just providing a summary or narrative?
Each paragraph has its topic sentence focusing on two major topics that are, racism and religion and how these issues have contributed to violence in the societies. Topic sentencing exists but at some point I feel that the writer is random and wandering. From the primary source, the topic is on racial discrimination against the black and how it made them migrate out of America (King.). When the writer incorporates the issue of racial discrimination taking place both in rural and urban areas, I feel the topic sentence is complete and fair. But from the secondary source, the topic sentencing is incomplete and quite unfair. The writer rightly talks of issues a bit out of the subject, and this creates incoherence in the narrative. The analysis of this story focuses mostly on the secondary sources, and it would be more meaningful if the author can add a little more on the primary source to be the major topic of discussion about his thesis statement.
5.) Does the primary source evidence used in the supporting paragraphs drive the argument? Does the author use secondary sources to contextualize, support, or criticize the claims that the main source makes? Are there any glaring holes or counterarguments?
The argument of the writer is that violence negatively affects the society by forcing people to migrate for the sake of peace or rather a comfortable life. The primary source evidence supports this argument by elaborating on how racial discrimination and comments forced the black people to migrate and seek a more peaceful environment where they were not despised and could make a living survive (King.). The main issue is that racial violence led to their migration. The secondary sources also support the argument for the claim. It adds evidence on how violence emerged from religious differences with the outcome being migration. There are counterarguments that the migration did not only affect the individuals negatively, but there were a few advantages experienced such as exchange of skills.
6.) When the writer analyzes the claims made in the primary source, does he or she evaluate the source of bias or censorship? Has the author thought about whom the author of the main source was, whom he or she was writing for, and the narrative that he or she is advancing in producing this document?
The writer evaluates the primary source as an excellent idea to help relate violence from the previous years to the 20th century. The author recognizes the author of his or primary source to be Martin Luther King during his speech to the Americans. Martin Luther's speech was to address the issue of racial discrimination in which the Americans experienced discrimination based on their skin color with the darker skin color suffering the most.
7) Find an example of a good "quote sandwich" that involves the set-up of the primary source claim, the claim itself, and then an evaluation of the main source claim based on secondary sources. Where is the interpretation clear (i.e. it contributes to the thesis), and where does it feel incomplete or irrelevant?
“The facts and figures determine that the blacks were suffering from violence and terrible surrounding, which made them leave America." The facts here is that the blacks were suffering from racial violence that pushed them to migrate out of America. This argument matches the thesis of the narrative that focuses on the impact of violence that led to the migration of people. In comparison to the secondary sources, it is evident that suffering made the people migrate (Francis,). For example, those who did not follow Christianity experienced pain that forced them to move. It feels irrelevant to the thesis when the writer focuses on cultural differences rather than religion.
8.) What does the conclusion do? Does it reflect why the paper’s claim matters? Does it relate the author’s topic to the broader themes of world history?
The conclusion offers a general summary of the writer's argument on the negative impact of violence on the society. It is a good reflection of the paper's thesis and captures the author's topic in a broad general view. It also reflects on the writer's stand on how negatively violence has caused people to migrate from their native lands as a way of avoiding further violence and suffering.
9.) How would you characterize the writer's voice? Does it sound trustworthy, intelligent, and attractive? Does the author's voice come through consistently in the writing? Does the paper suffer from grammar and style errors, or other mistakes that should be addressed in a further proofreading edit?
10.) Does the article cite sources when it quotes or uses the ideas of other writers? Are the citations in proper Chicago Style format? Does the paper also have works cited/ bibliography page also in Chicago Style?
The in-text citations and quotations are okay, and the work cited have the proper format in Chicago however it is not consistent for all the citations.
11.) Overall, what are the greatest strengths of this paper? Which parts could be improved?
The paper is relevant and consistent with its thesis statement. The language of the writer is reader friendly, and it's quite well organized making it easier for the reader to follow. The paper is good. However, the writer needs to improve on the topic sentencing and try and stick to one idea at a time in a consistent manner. The other also needs to improve on the grammar and sentence formulation to avoid incomplete sentences with squinting modifiers.
Work cited
Frankopan, Peter. The Silk Roads- A New History of the World.London: Bloomsbury (2015)
Francis, Fukuyama. The Origins of Political Order. New York: D & M Publishers (2011)
King, Martin Luther. "Martin Luther King Jr. On The Black Revolution of 1968". (2015)
