Peer Review 2

I peer reviewed Sarah Moskowitz’s QRG draft from section 4. Her rough draft can be found here. My peer review of her draft can be found here.

I also peer reviewed Joshua Smith’s video essay from section 2. His rough draft can be found here and my peer review can be found here.

AJ Cann. “Peer Review.” 5/23/08 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.

Here are my answers to the questions: 

1. I learned that formatting is very important for the visual appearance of a quick reference guide, along with the other genres. I also learned that even though you are very interested in your controversy, your audience may not be, so it is important to make your project informative, yet enjoyable and captivating for your readers.
2. I need to add some information and details to my rough draft. For example, I have to add specific descriptions of my stakeholders that describes their appearance and mannerisms. I also have to add information about what else was going on in the world during my controversy that could have affected it. In one of my peer reviews someone told me that I had too many pictures and that I needed to focus more on the text itself, so this weekend I am going to edit my formatting and take out some of my pictures.
3. One of my top three strengths is the title to my QRG. It is clever and will draw my audience in making them interested in reading the rest of what the controversy is about. Another one of my strengths is my use of side bars, graphs, and photos. While I may have a few too many photos, I still think they make my project a true QRG that is visually appealing and will be enjoyable for my readers. Finally, I think I did a good job of explaining both sides of the controversy without being biased.