This blog post will discuss aspects
of a peer review I preformed for a student in another section. The peer review
should aid in the editing process of her fine cut.
1. I peer reviewed Emily Bond’s “Revised
Post to Peer Reviewers” (i.e. fine cut)
2. I decided to make a re-design recommendation
for Emily’s fine cut. I discussed genre conventions and how they could be more effectively
used.
3. There are a few ways that I helped make
Emily’s QRG better. For one, I suggested changing her use of a crucial aspect
of a QRG: hyperlinks. It was not evident that she full understood the purpose
of hyperlinks. These should provide a deeper discussion on whatever idea is addressed.
Instead, some of the links were merely general websites (like Walmart). I
suggested creating hyperlinks that were more relevant to the subject. I also
suggested decreasing the amount of direct quotes that she had. This would add
to the overall effectiveness of the conventions of a QRG. I also recommended putting
listed information into something like bullet points. This would help her QRG
appear more visually friendly.
4. I suggested incorporating bulleted lists
into Emily’s QRG. The idea of bulleted lists is present on page 233 from the Student’s Guide. The lists provide quick and easy information
to the audience. The idea of easy accessibility is consistent with the typical
conventions of a QRG.
5. Something that I truly admired about
Emily’s QRG is the formatting of it. The project is very well put together, and
there aren’t any out-of-place large white spaces. I know that this is
especially difficult when working with images. This has inspired me to make the
appearance of my QRG a little bit more clean/polished.
