Draft Worksheet-Internet Resource Guide

Name of reviewer:

Name of Guide author:

Paper draft workshop:

Bring two copies of your draft to class.


Use the following questions to structure your review. Take your time as you review; work slowly and carefully. Be sure to ask these very review questions of your own guide, as you draft your final version.



Review of the front matter:


  1. Evaluate the Table of Contents.   Is the content adequate to support readers?


  1. Describe how the front matter discusses what's in the guide (contents/scope).


  1. Describe how the front matter attends to its audience and to the purposes for which it will be used.


  1. What does the front matter assume that the user knows? Evaluate these assumptions.


  1. What does the front matter say about how the guide is organized for use?


  1. Does the front matter discuss tips for using the guide efficiently? Can you suggest additional tips?


  1. Evaluate the development of the front matter. Which areas might need development or revision?


  1. How does the author distinguish between the different sections of the front matter?


  1. What could be added to the front matter to make the guide and its uses clearer to the intended audience?



Review of the abstracts:

(You saw these questions in the previous review workshop; we'll use them here to evaluate the rest of the abstracts.)


  1. Evaluate the completeness of the abstracts. Are the draft abstracts complete? Do they include all identifying information (title, URL etc.)? Do they include this identifying information in a consistent way?


  1. Describe the clarity of the content. Do the draft abstracts describe the resources so that readers will understand both their general function and their specific scope? (For example, your abstract on the index should tell both the purpose of the index and the range and dates of periodicals covered.)


  1. Return to the issue of completeness. Do the draft abstracts answer all four of the following questions sufficiently? Explain any weaknesses and discuss how your peer can improve the abstracts.


    1. What is this?
    2. What is in it (contents, scope)?
    3. How is that information relevant and useful for someone in my field?
    4. Are there any particular tips for using the resource efficiently?


  1. Consider the level of detail in the abstracts. Do the abstracts include a sufficient amount of detail? Can the writer expand the abstracts in any way? (Remember that detailed statements are better than general ones.)



Overall review (some relating to grading criteria):


  1. Are the entries current and significant?


  1. Describe how the guide is formatted and organized. Is it "usable"?


  1. Comment on the style of the writing. Do the abstracts give specific information in efficient sentences?


  1. Where should the guide offer additional explanatory material or instructions to help the designated audience conduct online research?


  1. How does the guide relate specifically to the needs of the audience?


  1. What has the author done well in the guide? What needs work?


  1. Provide at least three concrete suggestions for revision. Keep the evaluation/grading criteria in mind here.

Leave a comment