I feel like critiquing my own and others works is something I do really well. When critiquing my own paper, I always print out a hard copy to mark-up because I feel like it’s easier to for me to look at rather than just the screen. However when it comes to peer editing, I always want people to read over my paper and give thorough, honest feedback, so I always do the same. When peer-editing, I really focus on how to enhance the paper as a whole, not just simple things. When I edited Maddies paper, I stressed on some global categories, such as her strong thesis, text-to-text, text-to world connection. For a local concern I addressed on how mentioning social cohesion earlier in her essay and carrying it throughout would help for better understanding, because I felt as though that central idea got lost. I finally responded to her local concern, she thought that she was too repetitive. However, I reassured her that she was not. See all my comments in the link below.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v9332ZZlA7Xu6EOjGKoigXWBHhYn2h2e_-37OvMLAYQ/edit?usp=sharing