Peer Review for Sarah Hansen

            This blog post will describe the peer review I did for a student in a different section. I will describe how I helped her, and things that I admired about her video essay.

1.     I peer reviewed Sarah Hansen’s “Open Post to Peer Reviewers (Fine Cut Actually)”

2.     I decided to make a redesign recommendation for Sarah’s video. I addressed how she should change one of the genre conventions to improve her project.

3.     I helped make Sarah’s final cut better by suggesting that she change one of her genre conventions. Video essays traditionally include all types of evidence, including images and other video clips. Sarah included various video clips as her evidence. While the clips were entertaining, they were quite distracting. They left me confused as to what she was talking about before hand. Because of that, I suggested that she include more still pieces of evidence. Something like an image with voiceover would allow the audience to stay focused on the topic. The inclusion of an image with audio is still in line with typical video essay conventions.

4.     If we look at page 71-72 of a Student’s Guide, we see that there is a section about giving feedback. When I was giving my feedback, I made sure to incorporate information pertaining to Sarah’s use of evidence. I addressed the overall effectiveness of each piece of evidence. I also made sure to recommend how she could change her evidence to better support her claim (about her writing process).

5.     One thing that I really admired about Sarah’s fine cut was how creative she was. Her inclusion of her roommate really made her video stand out. Also, she did a great job at establishing credibility for herself by making plenty of personal (and relevant) anecdotes.

Peer Review for Nick Hernandez

            This blog post will describe the peer review I preformed for a student in my class. I will describe how I helped Nick make his work better, and something that I admired about his outline.

1.     I peer reviewed Nick Hernandez’s content outline.

2.     I made an outline suggestion for Nick’s peer review. I discussed how detailed and developed his outline was.

3.     I helped make Nick’s outline better by suggesting that he adds a few things to it. For one, the addition of a hook in the introduction would help his outline/QRG. This would allow for the audience to be drawn in right away, which would allow for them to be more engaged throughout the entire publication. I also suggesting incorporating a thought-provoking leaving statement. This would allow the audience to continually be thinking about the ending statement (which may draw them to read it again). I also suggested incorporating evidence into his outline. This would allow for the audience to better understand what he is referencing at all times.

4.     If we look at pages 46 and 47 of the Student’s Guide, there is a section that gives the general format of an outline. I addressed a few things from this section. For one, I suggested that he incorporate direct evidence (i.e. illustrations) to allow the audience to better understand what Nick is addressing. I also suggested leaving something to think about, so the audience would continually be thinking about his publication.

5.     One thing that I really admire about Nick’s outline is how detailed and honest it is. At first glance, his outline seems more like an essay. But if you read it, it is quite broad and gives a very good outline for the structure of his QRG.

Editoral Report 15b

            This blog post will examine a different aspect of the rough cut than before. Again, we will look at how both the content and form changed between the two.

Selection from rough cut

Roughcut

1.     Let’s first start out by examining the differences between the videos in terms of their content. The most major content change was the topic addressed. I found that my first draft didn’t really follow the requirements of the project, so I had to type up something completely different. I decided to talk about how I had to research every argument ever made. This level of research isn’t necessarily specific to a genre, but more specific to a topic (i.e. an argumentative prompt). I then talked about how the incorporation of the evidence varied from genre to genre. QRGs incorporated their evidence through hyperlinks. The change in content communicated the idea more effectively because it reduced the amount of repetition present. My first draft seemed to be a mere repeat of what I had said before. Another major content change can be found in the references. While I hadn’t yet incorporated these into the rough draft, they changed the content quite a bit. I referenced a few things about my writing process (its similarity to the Onion and a reference to my QRG). This allowed the audience to better understand what I was talking about, and thus were able to understand my writing process a bit more. These changes help the audience better understand what my writing process is like.

2.     There are also a few form changes. For one, the setting change was perhaps the most prevalent. I tried to explain how it was night by having a window in the background, but I don’t think that was very effective. My attempt at showing the final stage in my writing process wasn’t conveyed effectively. So, I decided to make this section to look more like an interview. I put on a suit in an attempt to show how my writing process has changed. I have become more serious about my writing (hence the suit). The change in attire/setting better shows how my writing process has evolved. This helps communicate the entire purpose of the project (to show the change in my writing process) more effectively.