Case #2: Blueprint problems.       

Peer evaluation:

Critique student letters for the correctness of such elements as following.  
Identify only errors & commendable or exemplary elements.

1.  Format:

• Letterhead: accurate, complete?

• Full address (titles for Alspaugh & you)

• Punctuation (colon after "Dear Mr. Alspaugh:")

• Subject line

• Decimal outline

• Content specific heads

• Closing

2.  Documentation: does the letter adequately document the phone call?  (Part of the purpose of the 
     letter -- from your point of view -- is to document that you did your job.  If Alspaugh
     continues to cause problems, you want a written record to document that you did your job.)

3.  Requests/commands:

• Is there a clear principle of organization?  Such as: "drawing problems," "delivery problems."
  Too few headings -- too many headings?

• Are the requests enumerated, concise, & visually discrete?  

• Vagueness?  The problems should be specifically identified, not vaguely suggested.  
  The solutions should also be specified.

• Thorough?  Any of the problems missing?  

  • Outlines missing & improperly done

  • Fire corridor not outlined

  • Fire stairwell missing

  • No match lines

  • Tenant use change (from retail shop to restaurant in the N.E. Wing) 
    obscured & unreadable

  • Sepia print quality

  • Send up-to-date, legible drawings to me by early afternoon today

  • Pending approval, send an identical copy to Liz to reach her today

  • Delivery procedures

4.  Audience analysis:

• What is the tone of the letter?  Scolding, sarcastic, too distant, condescending?

• Did the writer use the 2 implied strategies?

  • Newspaper publicity &/or the threat of embarrassment

  • Alspaugh's self-image as an artist

• What rhetorical or psychological tactics did the writer employ?

• How effective is the letter in solving the problem (getting Alspaugh to comply)?
  

Back to navigation