Reflection on Project 1 Draft

I reviewed Chingiz and Rachel's QRG drafts and provided some insight/ corrections/ suggestions. The peer review process has been invaluable to my project one process. Having my peers look over my work has helped me ensure that my controversy makes sense from an outside perspective. In this post, I will discuss what I've learned about my own project through the peer review process.

Eusebius. "Loch alsh." 9/19/15 via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

Audience

1.) Who is going to be reading this essay? Who am I trying to reach?

In actuality, only my peers and my instructor will be reading my QRG. For the sake of the genre, however, I am directing my information and analysis towards a general audience that has little to no background knowledge about the topic.

2.) What are their values and expectations? Am I adequately meeting those expectations?

The values of my audience can vary greatly because I'm writing to a general audience. The expectation, however, is that I provide a comprehensive and thorough scope of my controversy. I am meeting this expectation because I provide insight from both sides of the argument and hyperlink to additional information.

3.) How much information do I need to give my audience?

I need to assume that my audience has no understanding of the topic. That being said, I have to be brief in giving information, because too much text will overwhelm the reader.

4.) What kind of language is suitable for this audience? What tone should I use with my audience?

The genre allows for a relaxed tone and simple language. Since the QRG is directed towards a general audience, the language has to be accessible to everyone.

Context

1.) What are the formatting requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?

We have discussed the conventions of a QRG heavily in our class periods and also in the assignments on D2L, so I feel like I have incorporated these traits into my writing well. The one thing I still need to include is more graphics, charts, and visual pieces that break up long stretches of text.

2.) What are the content requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?

The project asks that I provide an adequate amount of knowledge to readers and that I give my own detailed analysis. I feel as though I have done that well for both sides of the argument.

3.) Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in class in addition to my own ideas and voice?

The emphasis of 109H has really been conventions and analysis, and I feel that my draft adequately reflects this new knowledge. I thoroughly delve into the motivations of each side of the argument and discuss why their rhetoric is relevant to the controversy as a whole.

4.) Have I addressed any grammatical issues?

Jennie's corrections addressed most of the grammatical errors I had overlooked. I did correct them; now, I need to look back and read through my draft once more to ensure fluency and check for grammatical errors.