Sunday, March 27, 2016

Peer Review

a. I chose to review the form of Chandler's QRG for the first part of my evaluation of peers. I think Chandler's consideration of the QRG genre is evident in that he makes a clear attempt at the concise, informative (personal as well) nature of his composition. His manipulation of text blocks and white space allows for an easy read. However, I do notice one glaring omission if regarding the Quick Reference Guide typical conventions - media. I recommend inserting a graph or a diagram as the message or logistics of any media can be worth a thousand words to a member of the audience - visualization is a great tool to use in the QRG realm. Overall, good job.

b. I wanted to rhetorically evaluate Julia Davenport's Essay for the second part of my peer review process. I personally enjoyed the personal tone as it enhanced the content and provided a certain passionate feel throughout, particularly the intro. The essay is fluid throughout, perhaps almost too fluid as I cannot distinguish the different topics discussed in each body paragraph, but if that is her intention for it to flow throughout, I commend her for it. Nonetheless, I think the genres themselves should be specifically distinguished, perhaps a definition of each genre in their respective paragraphs? Overall, great job, those are my content suggestions for Julia.

No comments:

Post a Comment