1. Is the project clearly based on a definition? I.e., is it clear that the fundamental objective of the paper is based around a definition or series of definitions?
The paper is based on one solid definition. Then it gives us a true meaning of what liberal means through different people and sources. It clears up what you are trying to say with good use of examples.

2. How strong are the criteria that the writer is using to compose their definition? Can you think of any items that also match the criteria used that the writer (as far as you can tell) would likely not want to be included the category being defined?
The criteria is pretty strong on to what side you are arguing about. I can’t really think of examples to add because you gave a counter example already of what other people say and what definition he chose to write and expand about. You give really good examples about the whole “gray area” and what liberal really means not only by oxford dictionary but people from history too. You also mention how the definition isn’t exactly what you were going for so you provide more examples which really targets your point.

3. What is the strongest counterargument you can think of to refute the argument of this paper? E.g., what would you point out/argue for to suggest that the author has their definition wrong, has neglected to consider a certain issue, or has presumed too much in their definition argument?
I think you pretty much provided everything you could like examples from the past such as John Locke and then present which is Fox News. I don’t really have a counterargument I can think of because you mentioned a lot of it in your paper.

4. What do you take to be the strongest element of this project?
In my opinion the best part of the paper are the examples you have provided from the past and present and how you agree and disagree with what they are saying to get your audience to be on your side. It’s almost like you are debating the whole way through which is interesting to read, and doesn’t get me bored halfway through.

5. What do you find to be the weakest part (most in need of improvement) of the project?
This paper pretty much looks complete just work on topic sentences for paragraphs to get your audience to keep reading.

6. On the sentence-level, did you find the paper to be well written? Does it contain poor grammar or sentence-fragments? Does it include "run-on" sentences? Is it unnecessarily wordy at times?
Over all I believe this paper is well written. It does not repeat itself and is properly cited.

7. Does the author provide clear exigence for the project? I.e., do they make it clear why they think this is an important term/concept to be defined in the present moment? Do you get a sense of why this project would be interesting today rather than, for instance, 50 years ago?
The argument is clearly stated so therefore I do think you have made a clear point onto why liberalism and the word liberal is important to the united states. The paper would be interesting today rather than 50 years ago because today’s society is so based on what the media tells us and people are basically getting brain washed instead of having a say in what they feel.

8. What grade would you assign this project if this were the final draft?
I would give this paper an A- because it is well structured; it’s coherent and does not jump all over the place. Provides good examples; ethos. It also provides what liberal really is through your perspective and the dictionary instead of based on one definition.