Peer Review 1

Peer review (rubric) for Jason Boley's rough draft.

After reviewing a peer's work (a QRG, the same genre I am utilizing for the controversy postmortem), I am relieved to the fact many of my peers are implementing the same conventions I have attempted to utilize. The Genre Examples for the Quick-Reference Guide were varied in structure, so I was curious to see if a classmate of mine had used the same conventions that I thought were consistent in all the QRGs or if I missed anything or if he saw something I did not. Considering my draft was purely textual, I planned on inserting media into my QRG to enhance the piece's delivery and effectiveness and seeing Jason's work gave me a necessary example. I am extremely content with the transitory subheadings and overall flow of my piece as well as the tone, diction, and syntax. Jason clearly identified stakeholders and what they had to lose or gain, which I wish to emulate. I believe the controversy is well-explained in my draft but the concerned parties' true stakes are not clearly identified so I wish to change that. His manipulation of font and pictures as well are something I will try to incorporate in my own piece. I enjoy the personal and relative tone I created in my piece but I need to increase the concreteness and professionalism in my writing, which I discovered after reading Jason's QRG. The diminutive appearance of the pictures disengaged me from Jason's draft, so I will be sure to make sure my pictures are relative and effective in size, vibrance, and overall delivery (appearance). I liked Jason's title in that it was vague so I did not know what the piece was going to discuss but it did not necessarily hook me, just made me draw a blank. I see that in my title as well, I need to find a good balance of direct statement of what is going to be discussed while appealing to an audience enough to make them want to read it because of a heightened desire for inquisition.