Appendix 3B – Weblog article peer review form
Weblog Article Peer Review Form B – Second Review
Writer’s Name Simone van Riet
Assessor’s name Kimberly vegting
Date 24-10-2007
Rating Scale: 1 = Yes 2 = Somewhat 3 = No
Rate the article by giving a 1, 2 or 3 for each question. Read the article once to get
a general idea of what it is about, then read it a second time to rate it.
1. Is the topic interesting? 1
2. Is the title original and appropriate? 2
3. Is the introduction complete? 1
4. Is the body of your article complete? 1
5. Is the conclusion well-developed? 1
6. Is the article well-organized overall? 1
7. Is the article easy to understand? 2
8. Is the article interesting to read? 1
9. Has any plagiarised material been removed? 3
Do you feel that the writer has improved the article? Why or why not? Be specific.
I think the article is improved because its explains better know what PR is about. The article has a good body and there’s a good conclusion in the end.
Has the writer changed the article adequately according to your suggestions for
improvement of your first assessment? Describe the changes and state specifically
whether you think they are an improvement.
The writer gives a explains what the job of a PR manager is.
The transitions between paragraphs are improved.
There’s a good conclusion to the story and why it could be used for the O’Neill campaign.
Are you happy to have this article on your web log? Why or why not? Be specific.
I will be happy to have this article on my web log because I think it’s a very interesting subject to read and other people from the advertising world may also like to read about PR.
