Relection on Project 2

This blog post will go over the successes and difficulties that I had with this production week.

1.     I believe that I was very successful in containing and editing the content that I began with. The added time of all of the audio before editing was about 26 minutes. I got it down to about 15 minutes with the deletion of several unnecessary portions of my podcast.

   Another thing that went right was the implementation of additional audio segments from different time frames. For instance, importing the audio segment from my interview with Dr. Pagel provided a nice section to my podcast.

2.      There were quite a few things that went wrong this week. For one, my computer wasn’t recognizing the audio files from my phone in Garage Band. With that being side, I had to edit all of the content in iMovie. It was also very difficult to delete any audio segment where I messed up just a little bit because the deletion of that section would cut out an enire word.

It was also hard to figure out how to include smooth transtiitons in to the podcast because I felt like the podcast was fine by itself. However, the trasntitions definitely ended up helping.

3.     I think that next week will go great. It is going to be a new project with a new genre and new content. It can certainly get tedious working with the same content over and over again.

4.     I feel good about this project. The only thing that im worried about is the amount of awkward pasues in my podcast. I am also worried about the conventions that I used in an attempt to formulate it like a podcast.

Editorial Report B

https://soundcloud.com/benjabunny/bme-933-fm (0:00- 1:35) https://soundcloud.com/benjabunny/opening-section (0:00- 2:00)
1. In the rough cut, I jumped into the content too fast before giving a decent introduction. This made the podcast seem rushed and gave the content less importance. Also, I talked about the content of an interview without providing the audio for that which was kind of confusing, especially when trying to make a claim about the style of the genre. In some ways I was just repeating what was said in the interview which didn’t make the claim any stronger. So, in the re- edited version, I presented a question to guide the content of the podcast and end up answering. I gave a more detailed and thought provoking introduction to the subject. When I began talking about the core content of the podcast, I gave the evidence, included the interview audio, and analyzed the claim further, while being sure not to be too repetitive.
2. I didn’t put much thought into the form of the rough cut. All of the content was just mashed all together and it didn’t flow nicely. In the edited version, I put sound clips in to work as transitions so that the content was more organized and ultimately engaged the audience. There were some times when I would stumble on words or my lack of editing skills failed that I tried to fix in the final version so that the mistakes wouldn’t be distracting from what I was saying. 

Editorial Report A

The content of this blog post will be about the differences and changes between the rough draft of my rough and final draft.

1.     The content of the closing section of my final draft changed significantly from my rough draft. I introduced a few examples in to my rough draft about why knowing the purpose of your publication is important and it didn’t seem to be relevant at all. I cut that section out completely in order to make more room for the content preceding it.

 I also took out the unnecessary language that seemed to be leading no where (as in about 10:00 to 10:10). This increased the amount of time that I had for other sections of the podcast.

The content is now being communicated more effectively because the content is more concise. This provides a more direct form of communication that will get my point across more effectively. The rambling that occurred in my podcast may have distracted people from the point that I was trying to make.

From 8:20 to 10:20 (rough draft): https://soundcloud.com/benjabunny/claim-3

From 14:14 to 15:06 (final): https://soundcloud.com/benjabunny/bme-933-fm

1.     The format of my final draft was also a lot different from my rough draft. For one, I made sure to take out the pauses and reduce the volume of the portions where the microphone was muffled. I also added a recording in order to provide a smoother transition into my discussing why it’s important to understand the genre that you’re writing in. I also took out sections where I rambled in order to make the information clearer.

All of this makes the presentation of the content clearer. Without pauses, loud sounds, smooth transitions, it is easier to pay attention to the content of the podcast rather than the random noises that appear.

Peer Review for David Klebosky

This blog post is about the second individual that I peer reviewed. I have learned a lot from peer reviewing and will certainly learn more and more as the peer reviews increase.

The next student I peer reviewed (not in our class) was David Klebosky’s “A Quick Look into the Rhetorical Life of a Civil Engineer”.

I decided to make a recommendation about the form of this article. I made sure to address the typical conventions of a QRG and how David’s publication addressed them.

I made numerous comments about the conventions of a QRG. I described how they were supposed to be a quick and easy way to understand the content at hand. I made it clear that his publication barely followed the typical format of a QRG. I then suggested what needed to be done in order to help make his article better.
            In terms of information for the Student Guide, I made incorporated information from the revision and content section of the book. For the revision section, I told David that he needed to go back and re-format his article in order to better fit the conventions of a QRG. This revision process would help improve his draft tremendously.

As for the content section from the Student Guide, it is suggested to not explicitly state what you will be writing about. This leads to a less professional publication as a whole. I suggested that David’s introduction section be re-formatted in order to hint at the information ahead instead of explicitly stating what he would be writing about.

I really admired how the article was structured as a whole. Not in in the sense of a QRG, but how unique the formatting was. He would make the title of a subsection “emotion” and then describe how the publication he was examining exemplified ethos. I could certainly learn to make my work less formulaic and more “me” in order to produce a better publication as a whole.