Peer Review 2

For my second round of peer reviewing, I reviewed Nicholas Hoover's video and Jianna LoCricchio's quick reference guide.
Here are their drafts: Hoover's Draft and LoCricchio's Draft.
1. After watching Hoover's video, I was left with an impending sense of doom because at some point in the near future I will have to produce one myself. I also realized that I need to start thinking of ways to differentiate my video from everyone else's and to make it entertaining as soon as possible.
2. My top three issue with my draft

1. I feel like it is too short.
• To fix this, I plan to do a lot more research on my controversy this weekend in order to have enough information to add another section to my quick reference guide.
2. I feel like I could go in depth on the various stakeholders.
• To fix this, I plan to perform vigorous research with the specific goal of finding suitable quotes that sum up each stakeholder's view on the controversy.
3. I feel like I could focus more on setting and occasion.
• I plan to research specific places in which my controversy is a hot topic, besides Hollywood.

3. My top three strengths

1. Loyalty to the format of a quick reference guide.
• As I add more sections to my QRG, I hope to maintain the short, sweet, and to-the-point tone of m first draft.
2. Analysis of my controversy being an example of a greater social issue.
• By relating the controversy to a greater flaw in our society, I manage to thoughtfully conclude my entire QRG.
3. The general flow and consistency.
• Typically my writing style erratically jumps from tone to tone, but I feel that this QRG, due to its pragmatism, is very consistently toned.

AJC ajcann.wordpress.com. "Peer Review". 5/23/2008 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.