Peer Review #2

For this next post I will be peer review two more people. The first QRG is done by Emily and the second is done by Tim.

My review for Emily's QRG is here. And the review for Tim's is here.

1. Comparing my own draft to others that I read I learned a lot about my own. Specifically, their drafts showed me the importance of making the audience interested because they post drew the reader in with their titles. Furthermore, I also learned about the importance of context and time period in a QRG and how I should incorporate more of that in mine.

2. The top three problems with my draft are: I need to explain more of my key stakeholders, I need to add more different quotes, and I also need to amp up my questions to make them more interesting. To explain more of my key stakeholders I'm going to add another section for more stakeholders. I will research more quotes to add and I will also think of more creative titles for my QRG.

3. The strengths of my QRG are: making the conventions of the QRG appeal to the audience, using descriptive words to enhance the setting, and also good use of images throughout the QRG. Most of these were strengths for the audience portion and the context portion because I used good language and was descriptive. If I made the other pieces of my QRG more descriptive and informative, than my QRG will be even better!

"Shia Lebouf" 2015 via giphy.