ARTICLE SUMMARY PEER REVIEW FORM…………….

ARTICLESUMMARY: PEER REVIEW FORM…………….Title of paper:Trappingthe Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception

INTRODUCTION:Does the introduction get your attention and make you want to keepreading?Yes,however, the introduction gives more detailed in the description ofMachiavelli, other than the topic that is to be tackled. But thediscussion in the introduction is clear that the paper is to discussthe politics of deception.

Inthe opening paragraph, do you get a clear sense of the issue(s) thatwill be addressed?

Yes,the article summary presents a clear sense of the issue of thepolitics of deception, as the main things that the paper willaddress.

SUMMARY:Does the paper offer a clear summary of the major elements of thearticle?Yes.There are clear elements of the article that the student representsin the summary. This is because the student gives them in a clearway.

ANALYSIS:Does the paper relate the article to something we have covered in ourdiscussions (if applicable)

Yes.The article summary explores the topics that we learnt and discussed.The discussion of the Machiavellian principles in ThePrinceis discussed in the paper

Doesthe paper provide an evaluation of the article’sstrengths/weaknesses?

Yes,the article summary presents some strengths of the article

Arethere additional points (of comparison or contrast) that you feelcould/should have been addressed? (Please specify)

Yes.The article summary should have explores the aspects of the articlethat will be important for the paper on the topic of politics ofdeception.

CONCLUSION:Does the paper have a catchy/forceful/graceful/memorable/appropriateending?

No.while the conclusion of the paper gives a graceful ending it does notgive a reason for the use of the article in the project. However, itis a good summary.

STYLEAND STRUCTURE: Is the paper:

2pages long (double-spaced, with 1-inch margins, and 12pt Times NewRoman font

Yes.The article summary is 2 pages

Wellorganized and balanced?

Yes,the article summary is well organized

Clearand reasonably concise,? (If certain points are unclear, pleasespecify what needs work.)Yes,the paper conciseArethere good transitions between paragraphs and sections?

Yes,the transitions are good

Isthe choice of words varied and appropriate (are certain wordsoverused or misused)?No,the choice of words is good and appropriateSOURCES:Does the article that is summarized/analyzed appear to be a scholarlyarticle?

Yes,the source looks academic

Isthe source clearly documented?

Yes,the source is documented

Arequotations (and paraphrased ideas) properly attributed with afootnote or page number in parentheses?

Thereare quotations, mentioning the author, but no footnotes can be seen

GRAMMAR:Does the paper appear to have been proofread (is it relatively freeof minor errors)?Yes,the paper is proofread

Doesthe paper contain (please mark items to be corrected on the paperitself):Incomplete/run-on sentences NoneDanglingor misplaced modifiers NoneSpellingerrors (incl. its/it’s, your/you’re, there/they’re/their,to/too/two, etc.) NoPunctuationerrors None

Inconsistenciesin spaces after periods, hyphens (-)/en (–)/em(—)dashes and spaces, etc. None

OVERALL:Did the paper keep your attention?

Yes.It is interesting to read

Werethere sections of it that did not?

No,all are interesting

Didit make you care about the topic?Yes.The article summary ignited the reflection of Machiavellianprinciples in ThePrince

Whatdid you like best about this paper?Iliked the relation of ThePrincewith the politics of deception by discussing about trapping theprince.

Whatwas your least favorite thing about this paper?Theassociation of Machiavelli to the republican politics, I think it isnot a favorite topic among many

Anyfinal comments or suggestions

Yes.The application of the Machiavellian principles about politics ofdeception is fairly done