Peer Review 1

For this peer review on GLOBAL issues, I looked at Brady Thomas' rough draft.  My rubric for this draft can be found HERE.

AJ Cann.  "Peer Review" 5/23/2008 via flickr.com.  Creative Commons Generic License.

Based on my experience peer reviewing, I will be discussing two mistakes my peer made, as well as two smart decisions that they made.

MISTAKES:

1.  One mistake that I noticed was that my peer didn't bring up why his topic was controversial until late in his quick reference guide.  He spent the first few pages talking about the historical context and buildup, without mentioning why there was a controversy in the first place.  I need to make sure that my audience knows what I am going to be talking about from the start so that I can plant a seed in their mind about my controversy.

2.  Another mistake that I noticed was that my peer didn't expand upon their stakeholder's public speech in a contextual manner, as well as giving the rhetorical situation for sources.  This is important to me because I didn't really do much of this in my own draft save for a couple times, and I need to make sure I go back and beef up my information.

THE GOOD:

1.  One smart decision that I liked from my peer's draft was that they had separate subheadings for the who, what, when, where, etc.  This makes it easier for the reader to follow the context of the controversy.

2.  Another decision that I liked was that his subheadings were questions.  I felt like this added interaction with the reader (myself), making the QRG more engaging and easier to follow.