ARTICLE SUMMARY PEER REVIEW FORM…………….

ARTICLESUMMARY: PEER REVIEW FORM…………….Title of paper: Asa leader, is it better to be feared or loved by Allison Licciardi

INTRODUCTION:Does the introduction get your attention and make you want to keepreading?Yes,the introduction gives a good glimpse of what the article is allabout, and what the student wants to review. It is clear that thepaper is to discuss the preference of being feared for a leader thanbeing loved.

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

Yes,I find that there is a clear sense of the concepts and ideas that thestudent intends to discuss in the article summary.

SUMMARY:Does the paper offer a clear summary of the major elements of thearticle?Yes.I find out that the elements of the article are well represented inthe paper. This is because the student gives them in a clear way.

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

Yes.The paper explains a number of principles of Machiavellian that wehave discussed in the course. The preference of a leader being fearedthan being loved is dominant among other clear elements in the paper.

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

No,the paper does not give any strengths or weaknesses of the article

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

Yes.The paper should have addressed reasons why the article fits thetopic being discussed, and what it will present in the paper.

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

Yes.The conclusion of the paper gives a graceful ending to the summary,which makes the summary good.

STYLEAND STRUCTURE: Is the paper:

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

Yes.It is 2 pages

Wellorganized and balanced?

Yes,quite well organized

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

Yes,continuity between paragraphs is good

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

No,the article is from the Fortune Magazine

Isthe source clearly documented?

No

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

Nofootnotes seen

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

Doesthe paper contain (please mark items to be corrected on the paperitself):Incomplete/run-on sentences NoDanglingor misplaced modifiers NoSpellingerrors (incl. its/it’s, your/you’re, there/they’re/their,to/too/two, etc.) NoPunctuationerrors No

Inconsistenciesin spaces after periods, hyphens (-)/en (–)/em(—)dashes and spaces, etc. No

OVERALL:Did the paper keep your attention?

Yes.The paper was interesting and it kept me going on reading until theend

Werethere sections of it that did not?

None,all sections were equally interesting

Didit make you care about the topic?Yes.The article summary made me think about the reasons why Machiavelliprefers that leaders be feared than be loved

Whatdid you like best about this paper?Iliked the argument about the Ringelmann’stheory, that peoplework harder due to respect, follow others dues to trust and findmeaning from inspiration.

Whatwas your least favorite thing about this paper?None

Anyfinal comments or suggestions

Yes.The paper was comprehensive in its explanation of the Machiavellianprinciples