In this article, the author describes a practice of peer evaluation that she has found fruitful, both for developing students' sense of audience and for elevating the status of peer reviewers, whose opinions on successful writing are too often viewed as less trustworthy than those of their instructors. This technique of peer evaluation involves several rounds of evaluation activities. In the first round, each student's final draft is rated by three peers, each of whom scores the essay according to a rubric and writes a summative paragraph on the essay's greatest strength; area for attention; and, if appropriate, any distracting patterns of error. The reviewers remain anonymous to the writers. In the next round, the author collects all of the reviews, sorts them, and returns them to the writers, who then evaluate the evaluations, noting the strengths and weaknesses in their peers' evaluations of them. Finally, for the third round, the author collects all of the accumulated paperwork and grades the writer's essay, taking into account both the peer evaluations and writer responses, and writes a brief note to each peer reviewer, commenting on how his or her reviews were received and offering advice on how to improve them (often drawing from students' comments). Additionally, because this is often such an unusual process for students, the author frequently meets with them afterward to discuss the process and the ways in which they will use what they've learned in their next writing project. Key points of the three rounds include peer evaluation, writer evaluation of the peer evaluations, and instructor review of essays and evaluations. The article acknowledges that, while the author describes a process using hard copies, the activity could be adapted nicely to an electronic environment, given, for example, a message board system that allows for reviewers' posts to be made anonymously, with names revealed only to the instructor.