A DDHA 9901 Week 8 peer critique example attacks the provenance of a classmate's case, testing whether each source could know what it is cited for. Searches like "ddha 9901 week 8 assignment example", "ddha9901 week 8 sample" and "ddha 9901 week 8 example" land here.
What a finished DDHA 9901 Week 8 peer critique looks like
The critique runs about a page and is organized by source rather than by section of the draft. Each entry quotes the sentence carrying a claim, names the source behind it, and asks three things: whether that source observes the phenomenon at all, whether it covers the period claimed, and whether the field it reports is defined the way the sentence assumes. Where a claim rests on nothing traceable, the entry says so in plain terms rather than describing the writing as needing support. A short passage handles the sources that survive, since a critique reporting only failures gives its recipient no idea what to keep. The closing paragraph names the single provenance failure that would collapse the case if unrepaired, and separates it from the ones that would merely narrow it.
How a DDHA 9901 Week 8 example is structured
Organizing by source instead of by draft order is what makes the critique cumulative, because one weak extract usually supports several sentences in different sections and reviewing page by page meets it three times without noticing. The three questions run in a fixed sequence, from whether the source can observe the thing, through period, to definition, since a source failing the first test makes the other two irrelevant. Quotation precedes every judgment, which is what keeps disagreement checkable rather than impressionistic. Surviving sources are reported explicitly so the recipient can tell a narrowing from a demolition. Separating fatal failures from limiting ones at the end converts a list of complaints into a repair sequence, and that separation is the part most critiques leave out.
Entries built around a source
Each entry starts from a source and gathers every sentence relying on it. One questionable extract typically supports claims in several places, and only a source-first arrangement makes that concentration visible to the person receiving the critique.
Three questions, always in order
Can the source observe this, does it cover the period, and is the field defined as assumed. The order matters because a source that cannot observe the phenomenon fails before period or definition needs discussing.
Claims with nothing behind them
Where no source can be identified, the entry states that directly instead of recommending additional support. Naming the absence is more useful than describing the sentence as underdeveloped, and it is what an assessor is looking for.
The sources that hold up
A short passage lists what survived scrutiny and why. Recipients of an all-negative critique usually rebuild everything, including the parts that were sound, so the surviving list saves real work.
Fatal against merely limiting
The closing paragraph separates the failure that would end the case from the failures that would shrink its claims. Ranking by consequence turns a catalog of objections into an order of repair.
Where marks go in DDHA 9901 Week 8
Specificity dominates the grading here, and the reliable way to lose those points is a critique that characterizes the draft rather than quoting it. Assessors at this level also read for whether the critique engages provenance instead of prose quality, since comments about clarity and flow are available to any reader and demonstrate nothing about doctoral judgment. A third criterion in many classrooms is constructiveness, understood as usability rather than tone, meaning whether the recipient could act on the document without asking what was meant. Peer replies attached to the critique are frequently scored separately and reward extending a classmate's provenance question to a source they did not examine. Attribution conventions still apply to anything the critique cites in support of its own objections.
Get a DDHA 9901 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Forward the critique prompt, the rubric and the draft your section circulated for review, and a provenance critique quoting that draft, working through it source by source, comes back inside 24-48 hours at no cost the first time. Nothing beyond the classroom files is needed, and no workplace document is requested.
DDHA 9901 Week 8 questions, answered
How harsh should a provenance critique be?
Direct about the evidence, level about the person. Doctoral sections generally expect the objection to be stated without hedging, because a softened objection is one the recipient can miss entirely, while the register around it stays professional. The distinction is that judgments attach to sources and sentences rather than to the classmate who wrote them.
What if the classmate's case has no sources at all?
Then that is the critique, and it can be short. Working through the draft to identify which claims would need which kinds of source, and which of those are obtainable at all, is more useful than commenting on structure. Assessors usually reward a critique that names the missing evidence categories precisely over one that spreads itself thin.
Do critiques in this course get graded on the replies too?
Points are attached to the replies separately in plenty of doctoral sections rather than folded into one score for the critique, which is why the example here writes both replies out in full. Where a section grades everything as one submission, the replies on this page still demonstrate what extending a classmate's provenance question looks like in practice.