To make the most of peer review and conferencing, students were given a list of questions to consider about their peers' poems as they read.  These questions asked students to consider each descriptive image incorporated in the poem.  For each image, they were asked to identify the most effective word or words, the way in which they reacted to the image, how well the image fit the poem's subject, whether the image employed sensory detail, and if so, how effectively the sensory detail was  employed.  They were also instructed to choose one image that they felt was strongest (and to be prepared to explain their choice) and one image that they felt was weak, trite, cliched, or in some way in need of improvement.  Again, they were required to have a rationale for their choice.  Students were provided packets with poems by 3-4 peers and asked to complete a questionnaire for each.   This was completed for homework.  The following day, students engaged in conferences with their peer groups.  The groups considered each poem in turn, engaging the poet with questions about their work, sharing their resposes to the questionnaire, and discussing their reactions to each poem.  The students were particularly interested to note that there was a variety of reactions to several of the poems, and that students in a group often had different opinions about which line was most or least effective.  Though I had been apprehensive about indignant authors with bruised egos, students by and large were able to engage in this peer review process without damaging their identity as writers or their relationships with their peers.  Though some students were not as critical as I would have been, they were generally able to offer some useful feedback to their peers.