Peer Review:
To begin, I reviewed three of my classmates' QRG drafts.They are:
- Nicole's QRG on Hacking
- Jason's QRG on Lasix use in horses
- Mark's QRG on Fracking
Personal Reflection:
- For this project, my intended audience is my instructor and my classmates. I am trying to get my point across to them in an easy to read way that thoroughly informs my peers on my topic, even if they are not familiar with it.
- Throughout the QRG, I maintained a neutral take on the controversy, only stating the claims and facts from both sides of the issue. I did not voice my opinion, which may lead to readers losing credibility in my article. However, in the conclusion, I do speak in a tone that shows my personal view, and that is I am for Uber. I plan on revising this to remove my personal view, and keep it neutral.
- My audiences expectations are that I provide them with a modern controversy that contains a lot of facts and information, and slim it down to make the reading enjoyable and interesting. I believe that I am meeting those expectations as I keep my paragraphs short and to the point, while also showing readers the most crucial information.
- I need to give my audience enough information to understand and get a good grip on the topic, but not too much that I drown them with endless facts that they may not care about. I believe I provided just the right amount of statements from authors and credible articles that do not take a stance on the issue, as to not offend anyone.
- A QRG is designed to appeal to a larger audience with many age groups. As such, I used easy language with not many words that the average person would have to look up. My QRG takes a conversational approach, which I feel is very suitable for this project. I just have to revise my QRG to make sure the language is not too conversational, and maintains a professional approach.
- I maintain a tone that is easily approachable. It is not too stern, and not too comical, but it gets the information across in a professional, yet uplifting way.
Deviant Art. Quagsire Reflecting, October 28, 2011, CC Attribution-Noncommerical-No Derivative Works 3.0 License |
Mike, I wasn't able to read any of your peer review comments in the 3 drafts you linked to. How did you offer them feedback? Over email?
ReplyDelete