I decided to review her QRG because I wanted to see how others had done the same project. It really gave me insight when reviewing her project how much more I needed to do in mine to get it to the level I would desire. I need to expand more descriptions about both the people and the setting so that the audience of my work can get more entrenched within the story and actually feel connected to what was happening. So while I have much to describe still in the situation, I feel as though I have accomplished describing the information about the actual controversy exceptionally well.
 |
| Long, Christopher. "29/365 Corrections" 01/29/2013 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic |
Not to Do: Mistakes
One mistake that I observed and would not like to repeat, well I wouldn't call it a mistake; within Rhiannon's QRG she uses extremely informal language, that due to the scientific and academic material and readers of my article may feel out of place. I know that the ORG should be accessible but it feels slightly demeaning to address them in such a way.
I don't think there really is another thing i would consider a mistake within the draft that I would not want to emulate.
To Do: Smarts
Something I'd like to emulate from Rhiannon's work was her good understanding of the genre of the QRG; her short paragraphs and many headers really capture the conventions of the genre and make it seem like a quick read despite being very information laden.
The way she chose to separate up the main points of the argument for each individual was a smart choice that allowed for the audience of the article to understand the main points in a quick easy way. Overall I hope to attain the level of QRG that she has already completed at the rough draft level.
No comments:
Post a Comment