Week 12: Thurs. Apr. 11

Timeline JS update

New Link to Spreadsheet

Insert a Row in the timeline to add your events, do not add multiple rows at the bottom.

If you don’t see your new event posting, let me know.

Work on the Website

  • Updates from the Theme group
  • Updates from the Major additions teams
  • Updates on Minor additions

Group 1 Teams

  • Anthony and Evan
  • Julia and Philip
  • Caitlin and John

Group 2 Teams

  • Gloria and Evan
  • Julia and Cody
  • Anthony and John
  • Rebecca and Philip
  • Caitlin and Cody

Peer Review Assignments

See Basecamp. Post your general comments to Basecamp, if you have specific corrections, print out a copy of the post and write them on directly.


  • Before you even make your first comment, read the post all the way through.
  • Point out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the document.
  • Offer suggestions, not commands.
  • Editorial comments should be appropriate and constructive. There is no need to be rude. Be respectful and considerate of the writer’s feelings.
  • Be sure that your comments are clear and text-specific so that your peer will know what you are referring to (for example, terms such as “unclear” or “vague” are too general to be helpful).
  • As a reader, raise questions that cross your mind, points that may have not occurred to your peer author.
  • Try not to overwhelm your peer with too much commentary. Follow the feedback guide and the issues you are supposed to address.
  • Be careful not to let your own opinions bias your review (for example, don’t suggest that your peer completely rewrite the paper just because you don’t agree with his/her point of view).
  • Reread your comments before passing them on to your peer. Make sure all your comments make sense and are easy to follow.
  • Avoid turning your peer’s paper into your paper.


  • Were the basic sections (What Happed?, Why Does it Matter?, Links to Other Sources, Bibliography) adequate? If not, what is missing?
  • Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain
  • Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
  • Did the writer cite sources adequately and appropriately? Note any incorrect formatting.
  • Did the sources include a wide range of primary and secondary sources of quality? Note any discrepancies.
Grammar and Style
  • Were there any grammatical or spelling problems?
  • Was the writer’s writing style clear? Were the paragraphs and sentences cohesive?
  • Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? Explain.
  • Did the writer comprehensively cover appropriate materials available from the standard sources? If no, what’s missing?
  • Did the writer make some contribution of thought to the paper, or merely summarize data or publications? Explain.