Peer Review 2

Despite the lack of class time this week, it is still important to give our peers feedback for their work. As such, we were responsible for peer reviewing the work of two other authors, whose feedback is below.

McPhee, Nic "I tend to scribble a lot" 1/26/08 via flickr. Public Domain.

Title: Fusion v Fission
Author: Noelle Young
Review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1siuNN6NCZkWedhxPKVB2ULfvtaCjI_rcg7_G2HXbAyk/edit?usp=sharing

Title: Project 1
Author: Benjamin Meyer
Review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16yguZj4pe1uPnLxFehKjqjKfkKG-UWn0Okq8gaPz9OM/edit?usp=sharing

1. What did you learn about your own project (or the project in general) by comparing drafts of the same project in different genres?

While reviewing other QRGs posted by both students in my own section and in others, I found that the most effective guides were simple to read while still being informative to the reader. They also had a good ratio of pictures to text, something that I am not sure about within my own article.

2. Tell me the top three issues or problems with your draft in its current form and what you plan on doing over the weekend to address those issues.

For me, there are a number of issues with my draft. First there is my lack of introduction for the stakeholders, since I only mention them in short segments rather than introduce them fully. Second, there is my use of language at some points which could be considered too technical for the average reader. Finally, I believe that my text to picture ratio might be slightly off, which I will work to fix over the weekend.

3. Tell me the top three strengths of your draft. How/why are these things strengths? How will you build on them to make the rest of the draft as strong?

While reading my reviews, it was apparent that many people believe that I effectively used the conventions of the QRG to portray the Ivanpah controversy. I also found that many readers found that as an author I did a good job of integrating sources and sounding authoritative on the subject at hand. Finally, both reviewers said that I did an excellent job introducing the setting which I believe strongly helps the reader understand the story since the setting plays a major part in the controversy. I hope to improve on these over the weekend to make my final QRG include these strengths and less of the weaknesses shown above.