Peer Review 2

In this post, I will discuss my review of the projects of my peers Alec Eulano's draft and Bianca Aguilar's draft.

Reneman, "Icon, Draft." 24 February 2013. Creative Commons.

Here is Alec's review and here is Bianca's review.

After comparing drafts of the same project in different genres, I realized how crucial it is to understand the conventions of each genre. For example, several QRG drafts were very well done and included all of the necessary information. However, they lacked an appropriate amount of white space or not enough visuals, thus missing the entire point of the genre. This encouraged me to carefully revise my essay and pay more attention to genre conventions for future projects. 

After looking over my draft again and other people's comments, the three top issues with my draft seem to be: 

1. Not having a great introduction that draws the reader in

2. Not including enough information on major stakeholders (Purdue Pharma)

3. Having a slightly disorganized essay that needs some tweaking.

I plan on cleaning up my essay and providing more necessary information on my stakeholders so the reader is not so confused. I need to consider the fact that not everybody is as familiar with this controversy as I am. Additionally, I plan on altering my introduction, as now that I look at it, it seems like a bunch of facts put together. 

The top three strengths of my essay include:

1. Using quotes from different stakeholders to give the audience a better idea of their position on the controversy. 

2. My content is very clear to the audience.

3. My use of rhetorical questions gives me a unique voice.

I plan to make sure my content stays clear to the audience because that is a very crucial part of project one. I also might add more rhetorical questions in my college essay to allow the reader to follow the essay without confusion.