You can use this form for offline reviewing.

<br>Type your comments into this

document, and then use cut-and-paste to transfer each comment into the web review
form.<br>You cannot directly submit this file.<br><br><h2>Review Paper by ryder-
aqua-6692</h2><br><br><font
size='4'><b><u>Comments:</u></b></font><br><table><tr><td><b><p>Identify the main
strengths and weaknesses in the document. Be specific. Provide clear suggestions
for improvement.</p>
</b></td></tr><tr><td>Comment Entry 1: <br><font
size=1><i>(*Required)</i></font></td><td><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr><tr><td>Comm
ent Entry 2: </td><td><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr><tr><td>Comment Entry 3:
</td><td><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr><tr><td>Comment Entry 4:
</td><td><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr><tr><td>Comment Entry 5:
</td><td><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr><tr><td><b><p>How convincing is the
author&rsquo;s explanation of why the issue is politicized? Do they address the
reasons discussed in class?</p>
</b></td></tr><tr><td>Comment Entry 1: <br><font
size=1><i>(*Required)</i></font></td><td><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr><tr><td>Comm
ent Entry 2: </td><td><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr><tr><td><b><p>Is the essay in
good, fluent, and accurate English? Is it well presented in terms of spelling,
punctuation, and the list of references?</p>
</b></td></tr><tr><td>Comment Entry 1: <br><font
size=1><i>(*Required)</i></font></td><td><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr><tr><td>Comm
ent Entry 2: </td><td><br><br><br><br><br></td></tr></table><br><font
size='4'><b><u>Ratings:</u></b></font><br><b>Assess the author's description of
their selected issue (fracking, stem cell research, or
vaccines).</b><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27569'
value='7'> Exemplary: The issue is thoughtfully described: the science itself, any
controversy, and stakeholders are all mentioned.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input
type='radio' name='rating_no_27569' value='5'> Acceptable: The issue adequately
described, some aspects of the issue (science, controversy, stakeholders) are
mentioned.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27569'
value='3'> Developing: The issue is described, but barely OR aspects of the issue
(science, controversy, stakeholders) are not mentioned.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input
type='radio' name='rating_no_27569' value='1' > Below Expectations: There is no
description of the issue.<br><b>How well did the author explain why their selected
issue is politicized?</b><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio'
name='rating_no_27570' value='7'> The author thoughtfully explained why the issue
is politicized, and relied heavily on the reasons discussed in class for why
science is politicized (mentioned at least three).<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input
type='radio' name='rating_no_27570' value='5'> Acceptable: The author adequately
explained why the issue is politicized, and mentioned at least two of the reasons
discussed in class for why science is politicized.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input
type='radio' name='rating_no_27570' value='3'> Developing: The author explained
one to two reasons why the issue is politicized.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input
type='radio' name='rating_no_27570' value='1' > Below Expectations: The author did
not provide any reasons why the issue is politicized.<br><b>Rate the author's
arguments for what scientists could have done to prevent the issue from becoming
politicized. </b><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27571'
value='7'> Exemplary: Supporting arguments for possible strategies are
convincing.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27571'
value='5'> Acceptable: Supporting arguments for possible strategies are plausible
but not completely fleshed out.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio'
name='rating_no_27571' value='3'> Developing: Supporting arguments for possible
strategies are lacking.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio'
name='rating_no_27571' value='1' > Below Expectations: No supporting arguments for
possible strategies are presented.<br><b>Rate the quality of the author?s two
possible strategies to prevent politicization.</b><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input
type='radio' name='rating_no_27572' value='7'> Exemplary: Strategies are clear
and complete.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27572'
value='5'> Acceptable: Strategies are present but has limited
detail.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27572'
value='3'> Developing: Strategies are partially described OR details are
confusing.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27572'
value='1' > Below Expectations: Strategies are not described.<br><b>Describe how
well the paper draws on lectures and course
material.</b><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27573'
value='7'> Exemplary: The paper effectively incorporates relevant content discussed
in course materials to support claims.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio'
name='rating_no_27573' value='5'> Acceptable: The paper incorporates some relevant
content discussed in course materials, and most claims are supported by class
discussions and readings.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio'
name='rating_no_27573' value='3'> Developing: The paper incorporates some content
discussed in course materials, but there are few claims left unsupported by class
discussions and readings.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio'
name='rating_no_27573' value='1' > Below Expectations: The paper insufficiently
incorporates some content discussed in course materials, i.e., claims are not
supported by class discussions and readings.<br><b>Does the writer demonstrate a
good grasp of standard writing conventions (e.g., spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, grammar, usage, paragraphing, citing) and use conventions
effectively to enhance readability?</b><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio'
name='rating_no_27574' value='7'> Exemplary: Demonstrates facility with the
conventions of standard written English and has few or no minor
errors.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27574'
value='5'> Acceptable: Generally demonstrates control with the conventions of
standard written English but may have some errors.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input
type='radio' name='rating_no_27574' value='3'> Developing: Contains occasional
major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that can
interfere with meaning.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio'
name='rating_no_27574' value='1' > Below expectations: Contains serious errors in
grammar, usage, or mechanics that frequently obscure meaning.<br><b>Part of this
exercise is to communicate complex ideas clearly within the constraints of the page
limit. This assignment should be about 2 pages long (double-spaced, not counting
references). Use the following scale to balance the length and quality of
response.</b><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27576'
value='7'> Exemplary: Not counting references, the assignment is almost exactly 2
pages long (�4 lines);
OR Not counting references, the assignment is between 1.0-2.0 pages long, but the
author responded extremely well, i.e., scored "Exemplary" on all other
ratings.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27576'
value='5'> Acceptable: Not counting references, the assignment is about 0.25-0.5
page under or over the requirement (between 1.5-2.5 pages
long).<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type='radio' name='rating_no_27576' value='3'>
Developing: Not counting references, the assignment is about 0.5-1.0 page under or
over the requirement (between 1.0-3.0 pages long).<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<input
type='radio' name='rating_no_27576' value='1' > Below Expectations: Not counting
references, the assignment is more than one page under or over the requirement
(less than 1.0 pages or more than 3.0 pages long).<br>