Peer Review of Analysis Organization and Support

Fix based on this:
Organization
How does your peer organize their analysis?
Is it organized in a logical manner?
How does the organization highlight (rather than subordinate) the most important points of analysis? (Or does it fail to do so?)
How does the writer transition between ideas?
Support
How does your peer support their claims about the document?
What specific examples do they use?
What makes the examples sufficient and compelling? (If they are not, which sections need more or better support?)
Interpretation
Does your peer analyze, and not just describe, the document?
Where is this analysis sufficient and where might it need revision?
What, if any, areas of the document are under-analyzed or merely described?
Style
Does the draft follow a memo format?
Does each paragraph contain a strong topic sentence?
How does the document use headings and subheadings to organize ideas?
Is the document free of stylistic and grammatical errors?
Completeness
How does your peer consider the audience of the document they analyze?
How does your peer consider the purpose of the document they analyze?
How does your peer consider the rest of the characteristics of technical communication discussed in Markel and Selber and on your assignment sheet?