Peer Review
Peer review is part of the process of soliciting and considering feedback you receive on your writing. It is not to criticize but rather to critique. There is a big difference. We are not attacking you; instead we are offering suggestions for you to think about as you work on your project.
Writing takes time. Few people (if any) can do a job once and be done. When you receive feedback, remember: Some feedback will be good. Some will be bad. It is your job to sift through the feedback and figure out what works for you.
As a reader, your responsibility is huge. If you hand back a piece of writing and say "That's good," you are doing your peer a disservice. The writing may be good. But not giving substantial feedback is a disservice and of no help at all.
Our objectives for peer review are as follows

Content - How does the project's content fulfill the assignment? Does it? Where? Why? How? If it doesn't, what do you want to see added?
Is this writing interesting to read? Why or why not? What do you suggest to make it interesting? For example:
1. Does the intro catch your attention? Can it be stronger? How? What kinds of intros have we discussed so far? Suggest an alternative to the writer.
2. Is there context? Graff provides context for his narrative. How does this writer? Our experiences are always in context to some other force, idea, movement, etc. How is the personal related to the general?

Organization - Are the parts organized in a manner that makes you understand and follow the writer? Suggest alternative organization.

Grammar - Ah, Grammar. Is it important? It is. Why? Your credibility as a writer. Why should we believe what you have to say if you can't spell words right, if you have modifications which don't make sense, subject verb errors, run ons, fragments, etc.?
Most people make grammar mistakes when they write something once and don't re-read their work or get proofreading feedback. You know the difference b/w its and it's, for instance. But you often need someone else to read your work and point out what you are unable to see because you wrote it.
This is not about nit-picking. This is about making yourself a credible source of information and ideas.

Ideas - Did you learn something? What is the point of writing if you are not going to show us something we hadn't thought about before? What do you suggest this writer do in order to foreground the ideas? We don't want book reports, and we don't want non-contextual personal stories. What is the idea behind this narrative? Why write this (other than it's an assignment)?

What you do:
Open an email. Address it to the listserv and the person you are reviewing.
Address all of the issues listed above. Read first for the content/organization/idea issues, then read for grammar. You can't do both at once successfully.
Open one or more of the search resources on the class resource page.
When you think about the context issue, do some research for this person. Find those items which fit what the writer is talking about, compliment, or better inform the focus of the narrative. Suggest what you find for the writer to consider while doing revisions.
When you finish your peer review, email it.
If you get through one person's work, great. DON'T RUSH.
Talk out issues. Converse with one another. We don't need to work in silence (and we shouldn't).