A Note for Commentators: Because writing is an intensely personal exercise, writing and receiving comments is a psychologically complex event. As a commentator, you want to validate the considerable work that has been done to produce a paper, but you must also honestly and straightforwardly address all errors and weaknesses in a piece of writing. On the one hand everyone wants to be told his or her writing is good, but on the other hand everyone would rather write the best possible paper than be puffed up with praise. My least favorite thing to hear when I ask someone for comments is: “This is good!” I know it’s good: I wrote it. What I want to know is how to make it better. Empty praise gives me nothing. At the same time, commentators should try to make positive comments about specific moments in a paper whenever possible, especially if the piece is not particularly strong. Praise good titles, good thesis statements, good evidence, good research, good sentences, and so forth.

A Note for Writers: There’s nothing I hate more than hearing, “I know it needs revision,” or, “ I know I need to fix the errors.” When I hear that kind of disclaimer, I have no idea what you already know you need to fix and what I need to tell you to fix. At the same time, however, it can be very helpful to alert your commentators – whether professors or peers – to any specific concerns you have about a paper (e.g., “Do I get the history of allegory right on pp. 17-19?”) before they begin to comment on it. Doing so allows your commentator to direct his or her attention to the areas of most concern.

Offered below is a structure for commenting on papers in which the reader (1) puts him/herself in the proper frame of mind; (2) scans the paper, (3) reads it without making any marks, (4) comments on the introduction, body, and conclusion; (5) writes an end comment; and (6) edits the paper.

(1) Put Yourself in the Proper Frame of Mind: Before you start commenting on a paper, put yourself in the proper frame of mind. Don’t think to yourself, “I’m going to fix this paper.” Instead think, “I’m going to try to learn something.” Then, as you read, take note of two obstacles to your leaning: (1) the moments when ineffective writing hampers the communication of ideas, and (2) the times when your understanding of the subject is incompatible with the paper’s representation of that subject.

(2) Scan the Paper: One of the trickiest things about commenting on papers is determining whether or not the paper at hand is a serious paper, whether the writer gave his or her best effort on the paper, or he or she just shat out a crap paper without much thought or effort. To determine whether or not the paper you’re about to read is a serious paper, start by scanning through it and asking some basic questions:

• Does the paper fulfill the assignment?
• Is the paper properly formatted?
• Is there a fairly obvious thesis statement?
• Is there a fairly clear organization to the paper (introduction, body, conclusion)?
• Do the sentences seem to be well written?

It is rare to see a paper, however serious it might be, that is so good it needs no improvement whatsoever; it is also rare to see a non-serious paper that holds no promise at all. In general, a serious paper will allow you to engage with the ideas in play – to learn something, to wrestle with an argument, to agree or disagree – but a non-serious paper will require you to direct your energy to understanding what the writer is trying to say and helping that writer actually articulate his or her ideas.

(3) Read the Paper: Without making any marks, read the paper from start to finish, aiming not to correct but to understand the paper. Thus, you must read slowly. As with all reading – as, indeed, with life – you will get yourself into serious and irreparable trouble if you try to fix something you don’t understand.

[On Comments in General: As you start your commentary, resist the urge to circle or correct misspellings, punctuation errors, and so forth. Instead, comment first on ideas and organization: encourage the writer to solve these higher-order problems before turning to lower-order problems. In your comments, be fair and charitable, but be honest, and be aware that silence can be seen as endorsement. That is, failing to comment on weak aspects of a paper may make the writer think that, because no comment was made, that aspect of the paper is just fine, even though it is not. Also, be specific. Point out specific strengths and weaknesses. Give very specific comments, criticisms, and compliments. Be sure to identify (by using page numbers, quotations, clear references to the paper.) the exact sections of the paper that you are critiquing. Give very specific recommendations and raise specific objections if they will be helpful.]

(4) Comment on the Introduction, Body, and Conclusion: For the moment, set aside the overall argument of the paper. Ask yourself what the most important and interesting points made in the body of the paper are. What are the least interesting or important? Which ideas need to be further developed, and how might the writer go about doing so? Are there any moments when the writer plays it too loose with the evidence? How can the paper be more effectively organized? At the very least, point your writer to specific passages and say, “Do more of this: it’s good,” or, “Don’t do this: it’s bad.” Identify what's missing from the paper, what needs to be explained more fully. Also identify what can be cut. In the body, aim to make one comment per paragraph. Then go to the introduction, where you should be able to find the author’s thesis; and then to the conclusion, where you should be able to find a discussion of the importance and implications of that thesis.

(5) Write a General Comment: Commenting on the introduction, body, and conclusion will help you fully grasp the ideas put forth in the paper, and once you’ve done so you should use this now mature understanding to write a general comment. You should arrange your commentary so that this general comment is the first thing the writer sees. That is, the last thing you write should be the first thing the writer sees, because it will reflect your most complete and accurate understanding of the paper and its quality, as well as your clearest instructions for revision. In your general comment, you may find yourself repeating points made in your more targeted commentary on the introduction, body, and conclusion, which is fine.

Write your general comment by pausing to consider the author’s intent: what is he or she trying to accomplish here? Perhaps the most helpful thing you can do as a commentator is to try to understand what the paper is trying to say, and to help the writer say it more effectively. In your view, what is or should be the main point, and how can it be better (i.e. more clearly and more concisely) articulated? If the paper is already a good paper – i.e. one in which the writing does not get in the way of the communication of ideas – then ask yourself whether or not you find the paper convincing in its argument: why or why not? If, in your estimation, the paper is poorly written, your task as a commentator is to try to draw out the argument and to articulate it for the writer. Often an argument is more apparent on the outside looking in. That’s right: try to write a thesis statement for the writer. Doing so will allow that writer to revise the paper– that is, to rewrite the entire paper – using your version of the thesis as a starting point and guideline.

(6) Edit the Paper: The extent to which you should mark up the paper with line-level edits will vary, sometimes depending on the circumstances of your commentary, and sometimes on your determination of whether or not the paper is a serious paper. If someone has clearly given a good-faith effort on a paper, and obvious language errors still occur, it is incumbent on you the commentator to fix those errors. If it is not a serious paper, however, it is probably wiser to list the kinds of language errors that plague the paper and invite the writer to workshop the paper with yourself or someone else (fixing the errors in a non-serious paper could well be a waste of your time, and it is a significant time-commitment, if those edits are never going to be looked at). In sum, you are not the writer’s proof-reader or copy-editor. If they have trouble with writing standard academic English sentences, you might mark one section of the paper with suggestions, but it is their responsibility to get help on all the rest.

A Note for Professors: Whenever possible, use one-on-one conferences instead of commenting on papers. One of my most frequent comments is this: “This paper has real potential. Please see me in office hours so that I can help you move to the next stage.” Often, writing problems occur because someone has tried to do his or her writing before doing his or her thinking, or did the thinking while doing the writing and didn’t go back to revise. An invitation for personal help is particularly useful when the student’s problems involve higher-order concerns. Indeed, part of the job of the professor is to serve as a consultant as well as a an expert – a consultant insofar as the professor helps the writer formulate quality ideas, and an expert insofar as the professor can identify for the student when the student has hit upon a truly original and intriguing idea.

A Note on Receiving Comments: Reading comments can be both validating and frustrating. Sometimes your commentator will spend 15 minutes reading and critiquing a paper you spent three weeks writing, and your impulse will be to ignore those comments, but sometimes that commentator will be a seasoned professor who has spent years and years thinking about the subject at hand, and you would be wise to heed that advice. Be aware of the authority of your commentator: is it a peer who was forced to comment in class and might not have given your paper his or her full attention (or might not know what he or she is talking about); is it a colleague whom you respect and trust; is it an expert whose advice you should follow to the letter? The key to receiving comments is confidence: be honest with yourself about what you know for sure, what you are unsure about, and use that honest assessment of your own knowledge to evaluate the quality of the comments you receive.