Peer Review for Emily Bond

This peer review made me look back at my production schedule and make sure that I had everything in order. Emily did a great job setting herself up for success.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed.

I reviewed Emily Bond’s Production Schedule.

• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed.

Emily's production schedule can be found here.

• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed.

The peer review activity that I performed was the resource recommendation activity. I made a recommendation on software that Emily could use that was simple to understand for those that have not made many video essays.

• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?)

I think I helped Emily because making a video essay can be hard especially if you have not worked in the genre before. Simple software can be all the difference to success or stress.

• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback.

I added advice from the resource section of the Student’s Guide. I made recommendations on how to produce her video essay and why this will help here produce.

·        One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from.

One thing that I admire from Emily is her diligence in her production schedule. It is very specific what she needs to do, how she needs to do it, and when. It makes room for little error and this is very important. 

Production Post 2

The rough draft that I attached is only the narration. On my rough draft, I have video of the campus that this narrates over. Also, you will need to dowload the file if you want to view it, but it is a small file. 

Outline Item

• At least 3 main body sections

1.     I want to talk about how my initial stages in my writing process has changed.

Adaption of Outline Item

My rough draft of my first body section can be found here.

Production Post 1

I believe that I started my reflection off well with this introduction and can develop my body sections from it.

Outline Item

• An opening section

In this section I want to reflect on how there has been a lot that has happened in my work process this semester. I want to broadly talk about how I think I have changed. 

Adaption of Outline Item
My rough draft of my introduction can be found here.

Production Schedule

This schedule will help me stay on track as well as remember to do everything that I need to do.

• What is to be done

-        Collect evidence

-        Create a rough draft

-        Create citation

-        Make edits on rough draft into a final draft

• Location

-        Dorm

-        Dorm

-        Dorm

-        Dorm

• Planned date & time

-        04/27

-        04/30

-        05/02

-        05/05

• Resources required

-        Personal experience

-        Blog post suggestions from other students

-        Laptop

-        Camera

-        Video editing software

• Date completed

-        04/27

• Changes made after completion & reasons why

-        None so far

Content Outline

This outline will help me with production and make for a more rich reflection on the semester.

• An opening section

In this section I want to reflect on how there has been a lot that has happened in my work process this semester. I want to broadly talk about how I think I have changed.

• 3 main body sections 

1.     I want to talk about how my initial stages in my writing process has changed.

2.     I want to talk about how I used my skills in time management and ability to work with others to get things done in my writing process during this class.

3.     I want to talk about how my skills in other genres besides a standard college essay.

• A closing section

I want to speak of what I have learned as a whole about a smart writing process and speak of how changing my process helped me greatly for this class and will help me greatly in other times of my life as well.

• Main idea for each section

1.     The introduction is meant to set the stage to speak of my writing process overall.

2.     The first body section is meant to speak about my changes that I made in my process.

3.     The second body section is meant to speak of my strengths in my writing process and how I use them.

4.     The third body section is meant to talk about my weaknesses and how I developed those over the course of the semester.

5.     The conclusion is meant to wrap these ideas up and talk about how my writing process will progress in the future.

• Major pieces of evidence for each body section

1.     First body section

-        I changed how I research

-        I began to write an outline before diving into the rough draft

2.     Second body section

-        I consistently space things out in order to not be rushed on the due day.

-        I make a plan for each week and beyond to make sure I do not forget to do anything.

-        I reach out to people early if I need their help and make them a priority if they need help.

3.     Third body section

-        I had never produced a podcast or video essay before

-        I learned new software that will be useful in the future

-        I got criticism from others in how I can do better and made those adjustments.

• Summary of what the evidence proves

1.     First body section

-        This proves that I thought out my process and what I need to know before I started writing.

-        This proves that I made sure I was covering everything and did not forget to write about something important in my paper.

2.     Second body section

-        This proves that I do not procrastinate.

-        This proves that I am not lazy and make sure that everything is going to be completed.

-        This proves that I am able to work with others and accept their advice as well as give them sound advice.

3.     Third body section

-        This proves that I had no previous knowledge in how to work in these genres.

-        This proves that I gained experience and will be able to use these genres effectively in the future.

-        This proves that I made an effort to become better.

• Summary of why that’s important 

1.     First body section

-        This piece of evidence is important because it shows more diligence and expertise in the subject I am writing about and gives me more credibility.

-        This piece is important because it ensures that I say everything that needs to be said.

2.     Second body section

-        This is important in order to produce quality work that is not rushed.

-        This is important in order to do everything that is necessary and not forget anything.

-        This is important in order to get things done in the real world as well as produce better quality things after taking constructive criticisms into context.

3.     Third body section

-        This is important because it would be difficult to produce in a new genre.

-        This is important because it shows what I learned this semester and how I will be able to use this experience in the future.

-        This is important because it shows that other peoples’ opinions can improve your work.

• Some ideas about how to grab the reader’s attention in the opening section

1.     One idea is to compare a how a piece of work without the change I experienced would look compared to after the change. Compare their qualities to show the significance.

2.     Another would be to explain my writing process before the semester and show it lacked in quality.

• Some idea about how to explain the larger significance of your subject in the closing section

1.     One idea is to explain how the improvements in my writing process will benefit me across the rest of my time in school and in my future jobs.

2.     Explain how producing higher quality works can benefit me educationally and financially.

Peer Review for Nick Herard

Nick did a great job with his project and there was very little that needed to be changed.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed.

I reviewed Nick Herard’s project, “The Truth about Outsourcing”.

• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed.

My review of Nick's QRG can be found here. 

• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed.

The peer review activity I chose was the re-design recommendation activity. It helps with the genre conventions of the project that is being reviewed.

• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?)

I think that I helped make Nick’s QRG more eye friendly with the adjustments that I suggested.

• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback.

One thing that I incorporated into my comment from the Student’s Guide reading was a suggestion on Nick’s organization. He had some problems with his formatting that if changed, would help make his QRG more appealing to the eye.

·        One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from.

One thing that I admire about Nick’s QRG is that he put a lot of effort into the content that he produced and he cares about the subject of outsourcing a great deal also.

Peer Review for Julia Davenport

Peer reviewing truly makes you think back to your project and think if you did everything right that you are suggesting to the person that you are peer reviewing.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed.

I peer reviewed Julia Davenport’s podcast called “What I think about that”.

• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed.

Julia's project can be found here. 

• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed.

The peer review activity that I selected was the copy-edit activity. I helped make suggestions that to adjust her project to make it that much more credible.

• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?)

I think that I helped Julia with her project by stating that she could make herself more credible my citing her sources at the end of her podcast in order to be more credible.

• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback.

I incorporated something from the “Sources” section of the Student’s Guide reading to help with her credibility.

·        One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from.

I really admire her sophistication in how she speaks as well has how well she conveys information. It seems professionally done and that is very impressive. 

Reflection on Local Revisions for Project 3

I am confident about my paper and think that the work that I have put into producing it has paid off.

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

One of the successes that I had this week was making the final adjustments to my paper in order to convey what I was trying to say in the most efficient way possible. Another success was making the grammatical changes that were necessary from the rough draft.

2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

One of the challenges I have had was finding a way to cite my sources correctly in the works cited as well as in-text citations. I also have had a hard time figuring out if I need a title page or not.

3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

I think next week will be a challenge, the next project is the project that I will be working in the video essay genre which I am completely new to.

4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

I am feeling very confident about the project at this point and feel with a couple minor changes, it will be ready to be turned in.

Revised Post to Peer Reviewers

Creating the fine cut of my project was not too difficult, but I did decide to change a decent amount of my paper near the end to more effectively convey my opinion. My fine cut draft can be found here.

• Key information about your particular project that you would like anyone who peer reviews your draft to know.

I would like to know your thoughts if I should have a title page or not.

• Major issues or weaknesses in the “Fine Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those weaknesses)

One thing that I am aware of is that I still need to finish my Works Cited.

• Major virtues or strengths in the “Fine Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those strengths)

I believe that I did a good job discrediting the opposing view point as well as keeping my paper flowing throughout the entire project.

Editorial Report for Fine Cut 2

My opposition to the other argument in this controversy stayed relatively the same. I felt I discredited their argument well and adjustments were all that needed to be made.

Selection from Rough Draft

Although the collection of some personal data seems perfectly reasonable to keep our country and its citizens safe, there are still many people that are strongly opposed to what the NSA is doing. They believe that it is a violation of their basic American right to privacy and believe that the National Security Agency should stay away from innocent Americans and their personal information. They use the argument that it violates the Fourth Amendment which protects American citizens from illegally being searched without probable cause. My rebuttal to that argument is that that law does not apply to the collection of data for your own safety. What this amendment protects if from the police breaking down your door in the middle of the night to search for whatever they want. It is protecting the average citizen from being prosecuted by local police forces in order for the government to raise money off small fines for such things as an under ventilated room. The National Security Agency and the Patriot Act are in place to prevent the naval recruitment center next your business from being shot up by a radicalistic liberal. It prevents your community’s bank from being robbed and innocent people being held at gunpoint throughout the process. The government does not have bad intentions with the collection of the average American’s data. They are not trying to find out if you ran a red light earlier in the week to hunt you down and give you a ticket; they are trying to fight for your safety and the safety of those around you.

Re-edited Selection

https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1xCjJ7Z4HJVe_E1BliEoHT-dvM6La0Zz8b2QuMgrlzbc/edit?usp=sharing

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

In the re-edited version of this section of the paper, I added a fact from a pew research study based on American’s opinions on the collection of data. This adds a great deal of credibility to argument and helps the reader trust my statements more.

2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

The form in this part of my paper changes in how I word my statements. I made several grammatical changes in order to convey the information more clearly such as re ordering my sentences in some of the paragraphs. 

Editorial Report for Fine Cut 1

Making edits to my rough draft into my final draft is a process. I am realizing that I can communicate my data in a more effective way and am changing entire parts of what I originally wrote.

Selection from Rough Cut

What the National Security Agency does to collect data is have companies such as Palantir, a company valued at around $9 billion, to build pattern-analysis software. This software works by adding metadata tags to communications as they pass through digital sensors at various points in the Internet. This means that the NSA has found parts of the Internet that they feel is at risk of terrorist communication and want to track what is being said. They then take this data and store it in large data storage plants that are called “haystacks”. This data is kept in order to keep the information in the communications safe from getting into malicious hands and also in case it connects to any future concerns.

Re-Edited Selection

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAbcpWdbq5z2rZgx_qBFKUpKOtNs2otyYm3LDiUwdnY/edit

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

I changed the wording of the entire section. I made it more effectively communicated because I used the reason why they collect the data in the new section. It also connects it to the introduction section of my paper as well.

2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

I changed the order in the points that I am trying to make in the paragraph. Originally I had the explanation of what metadata was later in the section but now in my final draft, I have it as the first sentence in order to give the reader an idea of what is being discussed.

Peer Review for Diego Alcantara

The peer reviews are a great way to make sure that you are doing everything in your project that you are telling others to do in their projects.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed.

I reviewed Diego Alcantara’s “Opening post to Peer Reviewers”.

• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed.

http://diegoandenglish.blogspot.com/2016/04/opening-post-to-peer-reviewers.html?showComment=1460932708899

• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed.

The peer review activity I selected analyzes the writer’s content. It makes sure they have the necessary content to convey what they need to in their projects and that the writer does it with credibility.

• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?)

I believe that I helped Diego because I gave him encouragement to keep doing well with his project and also helped him realize that there are some grammatical errors that he needs to take care of.

• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback.

I incorporated a comment about the sources that Diego uses and that it is great that he is using so many source and that they are credible. This will help him think about his sources and if they are truly credible or not.

·        One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from.

One thing that I admire about Diego’s project is that he does a great job incorporating sources into his project that truly help establish credibility for himself. 

Peer Review for Emily Bond

Reading another classmates work helps me realize that I have things to change about my project as well in order to make it even stronger.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed.

I reviewed Emily Bond’s QRG, “The Kids Aren’t Alright”.

• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed.

 https://drive.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/file/d/0B3wbiCNuTSrBVWwwRVZmR2M0NFE/view

• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed.

The peer review activity that I selected was the form activity. I wanted to comment on how well of a job that Emily used the conventions of a QRG and make a few recommendations as well.

• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?)

I believe I helped make her project better by helping her establish more credibility in her project by eliminating the exclamation points that she used in her rough draft.

• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback.

I incorporated the reference section from the Student’s Guide reading by helping her realize to fix her links within her paper to have proper citing for the project.  

·       One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from.

One thing that Emily really does well is help convey her opinion efficiently and in a way that is very convincing. She uses great arguments to show that her point should be strongly considered.

Reflection on Post-Production Phase 1

This was a good week to help improve my paper and think more in depth about my opinions and how I want to convey them in the final draft of my paper.

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

One of the successes I had this week was finding the correct way to cite in APA format because this is the first paper I have done in this format. Another thing that went right was being able to start editing my rough draft into a very well written final draft.

2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

One of the challenges I had this week was being able to make my paper flow well. I also had a challenge with finding some variety to my vocabulary in the sections that I was editing.

3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

I think that this next week will go well as long as I stay focused on making my final draft as good as it can possibly be.

4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

This project is going well so far. I have been very committed to making my paper as good as possible and want to finish out the project on a high note.

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

My rough draft is pretty well done I believe. I think there is a decent amount for me to still edit and add to my paper but so far I believe I am in a good position. My rough draft can be found here. 

• Key information about your particular project that you would like anyone who peer reviews your draft to know.

I think that it is necessary to keep the explanation of the Fourth Amendment, the NSA, and the Patriot Act. It may seem to get away from the point of the paper but I think that it is necessary for it to be in my paper to give the reader the necessary background information. I do not think it is a weakness or strength, just something that needed to be explained.

• Major issues or weaknesses in the “Rough Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those weaknesses).

One thing I know is that there is a lack of logos in the paper as well as a lack of citations for quotes that I use. I am working on putting these things in my final draft.

• Major virtues or strengths in the “Rough Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those strengths)

I believe that I do a good job of discrediting the opposing opinion with facts and a detailed argument that shows that the NSA is necessary for the protection of our country.

Editorial Report 2

This second editorial report kept the momentum I had for editing my paper going and helped me continue to make my paper the best it could be.

Selection From Rough Cut
https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1TeBzUjJ0NAxNL-7jxQ_Y-LhpA45GTY6E739eDIAoeLU/edit?usp=sharing

Re-edited Selection

https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1ysJTM8uzbCbvnxtILl8bnwZfe3G9FiUCRWFEXDjU1eI/edit?usp=sharing

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

I made significant changes in what I said in this part of the paper, especially in one paragraph where I re-wrote multiple sentences. The way the sentences are written now I feel conveys my point a lot more effectively.

2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

I moved paragraphs around as well as added in-text citations in this part of the paper. Moving these paragraphs around made the paper flow better and have more of an impact on the reader.

Editorial Report 1

Editing my paper was a long process but it helped me look back at my writing and make sure I was conveying my opinions is an efficient way.

Selection From Rough Cut

https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1KYkMwbUZfN5Lil4AuAryVCi0IJWvfYl71HT0r6Klqeo/edit?usp=sharing

Re-edited Selection

https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1WfDt3OrFyH6WENmRhNQke9UJT5bWSuuYxc2-Y_Lrn94/edit?usp=sharing

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

The content changed by me making multiple edits to what I previously said. I changed how I wanted to say certain things and I took some sentences out that were redundant. This makes my message come across more efficiently to the reader. 

2.       How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

The form changed because I added a title to the paper. This may seem like a content change, but I feel that the title affects how the paper is presented and this can make it classified as form. This helps the reader get an idea of what the paper is about as well as what I’m arguing.

Peer Review of Julia Davenport

This post was great to not only help a classmate, but to look back at my own project to see what I can improve. 

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed.

I reviewed Julia Davenport’s Production Report 1.

• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed.

My comment on Julia’s podcast segment can be found here.

• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed.

The activity that I selected was the form review activity. I made sure that here segment from her podcast followed the conventions of a podcast and flowed well throughout the entire piece.

• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?)

I think that I helped Julia with her podcast because the addition of music was the only thing that I felt she was missing within the conventions. The use of music can help greatly because it can help set the tone for the rest of the podcast.

• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback.

I mentioned the part about organization in the Student’s Guide. The addition of music in the beginning helps the project flow much better.

·        One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from.

One thing that I can learn from is the use of quotes from someone personally in the situation that my project is about. Julia uses a quote from someone who panhandles and it really supports the point she is trying to make.