A finished EN 104 Unit 7 peer review and revision: specific comments on another draft, plus a revised essay whose structural changes are accounted for. Searches like "en 104 unit 7 assignment example", "en104 unit 7 sample" and "en 104 unit 7 example" land here.
What a finished EN 104 Unit 7 peer review and revision looks like
Two pieces are usually submitted together. The review comes first: comments attached to particular passages, each naming what the passage does to a reader rather than rating it, and a summary note at the end identifying the two or three changes that would improve the draft most. Praise appears, but it is specific enough to be useful. The revision follows, and its changes are visible: paragraphs moved or merged, claims rewritten, evidence added where the review found a gap, sentences cut. A memo accompanies it, saying which comments the writer acted on, which were declined and on what grounds, since a writer is allowed to disagree with a reviewer. Both documents identify the drafts they refer to.
How a EN 104 Unit 7 example is structured
The review is organized by the draft's own order so its author can follow it with the essay open, rather than by categories of error that would send a reader hunting. Comments name the effect before any fix, because a reader reporting confusion at a particular sentence gives the writer something no prescription can. The summary note comes last and reduces everything to a small number of priorities, since a review listing thirty items produces no revision at all. On the other side the memo sits beside the essay rather than inside it, keeping the essay readable as an essay. Declined comments are recorded with reasons rather than ignored, which is what shows a marker that the writer read the review and made a judgment instead of either obeying or dismissing it.
Comments tied to particular passages
Each remark names the sentence or paragraph it concerns, so the writer receiving it never has to guess what caused the reaction.
Reader effect reported before any fix
The review says what a passage did to a reader first, which is information the writer cannot get anywhere else.
A summary naming two or three priorities
The closing note reduces the review to the changes that matter most, since a list of thirty items produces no revision.
Revisions that move and cut
The revised essay shows paragraphs reordered, claims rewritten and material removed, rather than sentence-level tidying of a structure nobody touched.
A memo recording what was declined
The writer notes which comments were not taken and why, which shows judgment rather than either obedience or dismissal.
Where marks go in EN 104 Unit 7
Reviews lose points for being pleasant. A comment saying a paragraph reads well, repeated down a draft, gives the writer nothing and many rubrics say so outright. Remarks with no passage attached leave the recipient searching. Reviews that correct commas while the second and third paragraphs argue the same claim have spent their attention at the wrong level. On the revision side the common deduction is cosmetic change: a resubmitted draft with new transitions and the same structure has not revised. Ignoring the review entirely, then handing back the original, is visible the moment both documents are read together. Memos listing changes without reasons show the mechanics and none of the judgment. Personal remarks about the other writer belong nowhere in a graded review.
Get a EN 104 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
For this one we also want the draft being reviewed, alongside your Unit 7 instructions and the EN 104 rubric your classroom posts. We write a custom example showing a review anchored to specific passages and a revision whose structural changes are recorded in a memo. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
EN 104 Unit 7 questions, answered
What do I do if the feedback I received is wrong?
Record the disagreement. Most sections grade the revision partly on judgment, and a memo saying that a reviewer misread a paragraph, with a reason, reads better than either silent compliance or silence. Where several readers flagged the same passage the confusion is usually real even when the suggested fix is not, so consider changing something there.
How blunt is a review allowed to be?
Direct about the writing, never about the writer. Saying that a paragraph's claim is unsupported is useful; saying the author did not try is not, and it tends to cost points in the review's own criteria. Aim comments at passages rather than people, and include what the draft does well, specifically enough to be worth reading.
The draft I was given describes their workplace, can I quote it?
Quote only what your comments need, and keep it inside the review. Another writer's draft was shared with you for one purpose, and anything in it about their employer, their clients or their family is theirs twice over. Do not circulate it, do not reuse their material in your own essay, and point at passages by location where you can.