This document analysis, which discussed the reforms of Peter I and Catherine II, deserved the A it received. The writer included necessary contextual information for their audience, ensuring that readers would understand the topic. The writing itself is very concise, with each sentence aiding in proving the analysis’s thesis. When absolutely necessary, the author chose to use quotes to prove their point, but mostly paraphrased the historical documents in order to further his argument.

The topic sentences are controvertible and relate directly back to the thesis statement of the document analysis. Making these statements controvertible rather than factual is one of the many reasons that this paper is deemed an ‘A’. The sentences within each paragraph all stay within the constraints of the topic sentence and work towards the ultimate goal of proving the thesis.

In particular, the first body paragraph about Peter’s Table of Ranks incorporates all of the features necessary for receiving an exemplary grade. The paragraph concisely explains the Table of Ranks (providing the “what?” and “how?”) and discusses some of Peter the Great’s motivations for penning the document (providing the “why?”). Direct quotations are completely absent from the paragraph, as the author instead decided to paraphrase information from the document.

Overall, the document analysis provides a well thought out, logical argument, which answers the prompt given. The progression of the analysis is also logical, as the author chose to first discuss Peter I’s reforms and then transition to the reforms of Catherine II. The discussion of Catherine II’s reforms makes the transition seamless because the author first discusses those reforms which were similar to Peter the Great’s, and then continues on to discuss the reforms which were different from those of Peter the Great.

In regards to mechanics, the author correctly cites documents within footnotes on each page. The paper is written using active (rather than passive) voice, which is an important component of any papers written discussing history. Aside from a few grammatical errors and a few spelling errors, the document analysis is completely free from mechanical error.