Peer Review 2

So for the second round of peer-reviewing, I looked over two other people's work.  This will be about what they did, and what I learned from reviewing their work.

1. Gabby Marty- This Mattress

This is the peer-review I did for her QRG.  And this is the project 1 rubric I did for her overall scoring.

I found her QRG to be pretty interesting, but it definitely needed to look more like a quick reference guide and to be organized like one.

2. Shauna Bratton- MMR Vaccine (the link is on the right hand side, but for some reason it isn't working so I just linked you to her blog and you can download her podcast from there)

This is the peer-review I did for her QRG.  And this is the project 1 rubric I did for her overall scoring.

I liked her podcast (partially because it was on vaccinations like mine) but it was a bit hard to understand her at some parts throughout her podcast.

______________________________________________________

QUESTIONS TO REFLECT ON 

Hillegas, Brian. "Close up of The Thinker". 05/13/07 via Flicker.
Creative Commons Generic Public License. 

1. What did I learn about my own project by comparing drafts of the same project in different genres? 

       I learned that the information about a controversy can be explained well in any type of genre.  Although I prefer to see the information so I can go back and re-read information, the podcast was just as interesting.  However, I did learn that I need to be clear and concise with the details and the information that I am trying to present to the reader because when things weren't clear in the two different projects that I just reviewed, it is hard to stay interested in what the author has to say.  

2.  What are the top three issues or problems with my draft in its current form and what I am planning on doing over the weekend to address those issues?

     The top three issues in my current draft are that my stakeholders are not well described, my quotes should be linked to the source I got them from, and I need to make sure that my sections are not too long so that the reader does not get bored reading the document.  I want my readers to be intrigued throughout the whole document.  Someone also suggested that I include I "further reading" section which is not a bad idea, considering there is so much more that the reader can research on their own to get the nitty gritty details.  

3. What are the top three strengths of my draft? How/why are these things strengths? How will I build on them to make the rest of the draft as strong?

     The top three strengths of my draft are that I think the organization is easy to follow and increases the interest of the reader, I bolded important topics or quotes that help the reader follow the controversy, and I think that my introduction and conclusion pull the reader in and inspire them to want to know more.  I think that these are strengths because they are things that make me more interested in reading an article, so I wanted to make sure that I included them in my project, so it would have the same effect on them.  As I said in the previous question, I just need to add to my sections to improve the organization even more, and include more references for the readers to go to so that they are informed as well as I am on the subject.