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.