Reflection on Project 3 Draft

Here are my peer reviews for Kelly and Isabel's articles.

ekamanganese "Pond Reflection" 5/27/08 via deviantart.com. Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0

1. Who reviewed your Project 3 rough draft?

Morgan is the only reviewer at the time I wrote this.

2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received? Be explicit and clear. Tell me what helped or what confused you about the feedback you got.

Most of the feedback was helpful. I tend to write wordy sentences and a lot of the corrections on the draft itself helped to reduce that. From the rubric feedback, there is not much I will do to improve the Purpose and Argumentation sections. Those two sections got relatively high scores. There was concern that my audience may not know all that I write about in the text (i.e. micro-dosing) and that needs to be reevaluated.

3. What aspects of Project 3 need to most work going forward [Audience, Purpose, Argumentation, or Genre]? How do you plan on addressing these areas?

Audience and Genre did not receive acceptable scores. I will address the audience by clarifying any vocabulary word that I think my audience may not know. Genre received a lower score because I cited things in ACS. I will not change that. I do need to add a title but I decided to save that for the final draft because laziness set in toward the end of my rough draft.

4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?

My project is going well. My rough draft requires less revision work than previous projects needed. My genre is pretty boring compared to the ones that I peer edited but I don't really have the creativity to make my project visually appealing nor will I need those skills in an engineering career.