Peer Review for Joshua Smith

    The purpose of this blog post will be to describe the peer review that i did for project 2. Peer reviews normally give me insight as to how I can better construct my own work. 

Joshua Smith did a GRQ for the second project titled Writing About Our Planet.

   I decided to make a form suggestion for my activity. I told him what was done right and some things that he could work on. I also described how well he followed typical genre conventions for a QRG.
     Peer review:

The content of the quick reference guide covered a wide variety of necessary aspects for project two. Each of the genres were well explained in terms of their format and how that relates to the audience/purpose. The introduction to the paper was very smooth and provided a nice transition to the topics ahead. The closing statement adequately wrapped the QRG up.

There are, however, a few tips or recommendations I have for this QRG. First off, the paper lacks typical GRQ conventions. It has images and a hyperlinks, but nothing to the extent that a typical QRG may have (such as the example provided on d2l). One of the images (particularly the first) dos not provide any real aid in discussion as images in GRQs should. I would recommend inserting something that is something more relevant to the topic.

I would also recommend using more hyperlinks and more media in the QRG. If we look at the Starbucks cup example, much of the article is filled with video or some sort of visual aid.

The paper also feels a little bit more like an essay than it does a QRG. I would recommend finding some way to spread the information out so it is an easy read.

The only issue I found in the content of the article was the discussion on journal articles. It sates that articles reach a larger audience than posters do, but I’m not sure how that could be true when they use “more technical in language than posters”. Visual aids tend to be easier to comprehend than a wall of text is. Perhaps consider revising this section of the QRG.
I helped make Joshua's work  better by acknowledging the things he did well and the things he needs to work on. The things that were done well should stay in the QRG. The things that he needs to work on should be changed in order to improve his article. Constructive criticism will help him construct a better reference guide as a whole. 
I incorporated a few things from the Student's Guide. For one, I suggested a few global revisions that could help his article. These global revisions include changes to the content of the article in order to better fit the format of a QRG. 
I also addressed changing the content in order to avoid confusion and enhance clarity. This is more along the lines of the revision of the Student's Guide (in which it recommends to go back over your publication and make sure that there isn't any confusing content. 
The biggest thing that I could learn from Joshua's QRG is his introduction. The introduction started out with a very broad topic in order to capture everyone's attention. He then slowly got more and more specific until he began to describe his topic. This provides a very nice transition in to the first claim of the article.