Author: David Klebosky
Hyperlink
Explanation for peer review activity: This is to help improve my peer's work as a whole.
Explanation for how I helped make their work better: It is always good to have someone read one's work. As this is the first time I am reading this draft, I can see issues the author might not have seen before while writing the draft.
Explanation of how I incorporated course materials in my feedback: I consistently look back at the rubric for project 2 to assess the quality of David's draft. This will help give me insight into what I can tell David to edit it on in the future.
What I admired: I admired the structure of the project as the project truly meets how a QRG should look like. The conventions (such as subheadings) are used effectively to truly give the feeling that the reader is looking at a QRG.
What I could learn from: I think I try putting more effort into making my drafts look more like the genre. I tend to add the conventions later in the post stages, however, if I strive to finish the stylistic requirements, this can make the post production process less busy.
No comments:
Post a Comment