Peer Review Guidelines
After an analysis of over 800 peer reviews from a past offering of this course, we discovered that the median review is 30 words, some 17-word reviews are excellent, and some 40-worders are empty cheerleading. Word count is the wrong axis. What follows is what actually separates good reviews from bad ones, with real student examples (names changed).
What Good Reviews Do
- Report something they tested, not something they saw. "I submitted my name and favorite game on your Who page, and nothing happened on submission" (Greg). "WAVE gave you 4.9/10 with contrast errors" (Sean). "The Validate HTML link points to the top of the page instead of the validator" (Suman). The reviewer exercised the site - clicked, submitted, ran a validator.
- Name the exact location and symptom. "The design firm link goes to ../yourfirm.html instead of ../yourfirm.com" (Jordan) - findable and fixable in one minute.
- Tie the finding to the instructions or standards. Tyler quoted the figure rule back verbatim - "each section should include at least one figure (image + caption + italicized paragraph explaining the AI prompt used)" - and then suggested how to fix it ("perhaps a small font so it doesn't disrupt your design"). Tariq cited the no-black/white rule and offered the justify-it-in-a-comment alternative. These are some partial samples of good reviews.
- Say what passes as specifically as what fails. "No accumulus errors, no HTML or CSS errors, accessibility 10/10" is a verifiable claim - praise that proves work was done.
- Engage with other reviews. "Like Evan, I also get a 404 - make sure your repository is public" (Kara) - confirming a peer's finding and adding the fix.
What Bad Reviews Do
- Verdict without evidence. "Everything looks great! You followed the instructions perfectly!" - 8 words or 80, there's no sign anything was opened.
- Template reuse. The same "Your website looks pretty nice. Missing/Things to improve:" shell pasted across targets; one student pasted the same paragraph twice inside one review; several mutual "you followed all instructions, everything is satisfied" pairs. Reused text counts as zero.
- Cheerleading as content. "Keep up the momentum! The next modules are going to be a lot of fun!" - encouragement is nice but it reviews nothing.
- Risky unchecked praise. "Crystal clear screenshot, no mistake at all" - on a submission that had real issues. False all-clears are worse than silence, because the author stops fixing.
The Guideline
A review must contain, in any length:
- One tested observation - something you clicked, submitted, validated, or measured, with the result.
- One specific finding or fix, named by location (page/element/link), or an explicit pass-list of what you verified.
- A tie to the instructions or standards where relevant - quote or cite the rule.
- In your own words - reused text across reviews counts as zero.
Reviews are automatically screened on these axes (specifics named, evidence of testing, text reuse) - not to grade you by machine, but to decide which reviews get a closer human look.
The Format (Every Peer Review, on Every Assignment That Requires Peer Reviews)
Start with their @name - first and last, like @Emily Sanchez. Type @ and pick their name from the popup that appears (it may also complete automatically) - a real tag notifies them; typing the plain characters doesn't.
Cut-and-paste Template
@Firstname Lastname
- FIRST LOOK:
- STOP:
- START:
- CONTINUE:
A Complete Example (About Seventy Words)
- @Emily Sanchez
- FIRST LOOK: whoa, the header photo is striking. Took me a second to find the nav though. - your honest gut reaction, written the moment the page opens, before you check anything; the one slot allowed to be pure reaction.
- STOP: linking your firm with an absolute URL: use ../mametzdesigns.com/ per the standards. - something that violates the standards or hurts the site, named by location.
- START: adding the italic prompt note under each figure (instructions require image + caption + prompt). - something missing that the instructions require; quote or cite the rule.
- CONTINUE: the component header/footer: I checked three pages and it's consistent everywhere. - something working, with what you checked to know it works; praise that proves work was done.
A labeled "START: add more content" with no location or rule is still an empty review. Nothing wrong to report? Say what you tested in CONTINUE and use STOP/START for the closest thing to an improvement you can find - there's always one.
How Many, and Who
Two peer reviews per assignment unless the instructions say otherwise or mark it NPR. If nobody else has submitted yet, review your own work - a self review still finds things, and it still counts.
Two Rules About Who You Review
- Don't review someone who already has two reviews, unless everyone already has two - in which case say so in your review.
- Don't post feedback on a submission I've already replied to, unless you can find something I missed. If you're late with your own work, do your reviews before I grade, or you'll be waiting on other late submissions.
The Checklist
Copy the block below into your review and edit it. Address every item with GO, NO-GO, or N/A. A NO-GO or a suggestion needs an explanation - the explanation is the important part. Replace anything in {curly braces}, and delete anything in (parentheses), which is an instruction to you rather than part of the review.
I {your name} am providing the {first/second/...} review of {name of the
person you are reviewing}'s {name of assignment}. (If you are providing the
third or greater, you must justify this — the only reason should be that all
other submissions have two reviews already.)
Things the checker cannot judge:
Link in the forum post is clickable and lands on the assignment itself
(not a home page, not a folder listing):
GO/NO-GO/NA {Additional Explanation}
CSS validates (the Accumulus cloud checks HTML, not CSS — check this
one yourself, or note the author's explanation):
GO/NO-GO/NA {Additional Explanation}
Contrast and font sizing make the page genuinely easy to read, on a
phone as well as a laptop:
GO/NO-GO/NA {Additional Explanation}
The branding actually holds together — the header, colors, type, and
tagline read as one identity rather than a checklist satisfied:
GO/NO-GO/NA {Additional Explanation}
Vicunadator status on the page:
{Right side up, or upside down with the count it reports}
Other feedback/notes/thoughts:
{Additional Explanation}
Specific requirements for this assignment:
(Take the requirements from the assignment as a bullet list and address each
one the same way. This is the part that earns the review its points.)
How This Scores
Normally your own submission carries two thirds of the assignment and the two reviews split the remaining third - on a 30-point assignment, 20 for your work and 5 per review. Some assignments state a different split. A review that says "nice job" earns 1 point; one that works the list and explains its NO-GOs earns the full amount, and does the person you reviewed an actual favour. The full arithmetic is on the Grading page.