Any type of project should be followed
up with peer editing. My own project will benefit from
editing others and using
their positive and negative aspects to develop better ideas. Looking at Julia
Davenport’s rhetorical analysis, I see that she has put in a lot of effort to
understanding the assignment, but could use a bit of tweaking to land perfect
on the requirements put forth by the assignment.
Julia Davenport’s rhetorical analysis
for her project 3 based on the issue of homelessness provides an in depth
analysis of her project which could use a few peer edits to really give that
extra edge when it comes to the rough draft of the project.
This type of peer edit, on the
brainstorming of the project, will help the author understand the assignment
better, help develop their project further, and also give different ideas to
the assignment. I believe my feedback will help her connect her own feelings,
background, and expertise to the project she is writing, as I believe this type
of project requires a level of bias.
While she did successfully
highlight major counter arguments and understood the depth and time a podcast
requires, which I admire her for, she also falls down somewhat in connecting
her own character to this problem. I believe by focusing further on linking her
middle class background to learn and helping the problem of homelessness will
allow her to focus and develop her project in the correct direction that the
assignment wants us to.
Also, I think by look more in depth
into the law and policy side of homelessness, this will help her find more
factual and relevant sources that could change the future of her issue.
I believe my analysis will help her
further develop her project, which is a focus of the Student’s Guide, but also
to follow the ideas laid out in class the previous week, where we learned to choose
a subtype of argument, and help her choose a type of argument to work towards
and she follows up with a rough draft this week.
No comments:
Post a Comment