Evans, Steve. "Tower of London Chopping Block", via wikimedia, 2/7/12. CC0 Attribution 2.0 |
I did a peer review for Joshua Smith's video essay regarding water on Earth. From watching the video essay I had a few takeaways, regarding his essay and my own. Seeing how well he introduced and clarified the context of the controversy told me that my own context was weak and needed improvement and more history. I also found that Joshua's essay was lacking, just like mine, in describing exactly how each source and stakeholder presented their information to the public, an area where we need improvement. Another issue I identified was that Joshua focused mainly on the three main stakeholders for his situation, with no mention of any others, while my essay did mention other, but in no real detail. The last thing I noticed was that his draft included a section dedicated towards where the issue was moving in the future, which I did include to an extent, but I feel could be a great way to conclude both of our essays.
From these comparisons, I can deduce that I do need to work on developing my descriptions of how the arguments were presented to the public, and improve my existing sections dedicated to lower level stakeholders, the context surrounding my controversy, and a well thought out conclusion. Another area I noticed before this review where I needed work include providing better incorporation of the sources into my controversy. I do feel like I provided strong positions for each major stakeholder and had a good analysis on what those opinions mean to the controversy as a whole. Overall, both of our essays need work, and the time for editing has started.
No comments:
Post a Comment