This study explored the use of a tailored online peer review program for first-year undergraduate students at an urban college of technology. The program facilitated group peer review in meaningful and technologically elegant ways. Students in a composition class were divided into two groups. One group acted as first reviewers, and the other group acted as second reviewers in a process of linear, two-person blind review. In contrast to a comparison group, these online peer reviewers improved their own writing proficiency with statistical significance. While there were no significant differences in writing gains between the second or first reviewers, patterns seem to emerge regarding the kinds of feedback--micro versus macro-level feedback--which each group gave.