I would say that in comparison to the first peer review, the second was more efficient and successful in terms of looking for improvements. I found that It was slightly easier to identify simple misspellings and little issues that needed tweaking like repeated words. I was also better at identifying larger textual issues such as repeated transition words as I felt I was able to give better advice on more diverse forms of transition. Not to mention, I found it easier to split the essay into sections like a naysayer paragraph or thesis and give better advice on them separately as well as suggesting where quotes could be added. Overall I felt that the first review gave me an idea of what I was missing so that I could better identify it and give a more thorough review on the essays of my peers in order for them to improve it.