Peer Review for Michaela Harrington

In this post I will describe how well Michaela was able to produce quality content in her Production Report 1 post of her rough cut.

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

Michaela Harrington's Production Report 1.

• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed.

Michaela's project can be found here.

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

The review activity that I performed was the content review activity. This can help people make sure that are putting everything they need in their projects.

• 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 Michaela know that she did well in this part of the project and that she needs to continue with this effort on the other parts of her 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.

The suggestion that I made to Micheala was from the Evidence part of the Student’s Guide. This section mentions the use of quotes which is what the news broadcast that she uses would fall under. I mentioned that she should continue to use these kinds of pieces of evidence.

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

One thing that I can take away from Micheala’s production report is the care that she had with using her words. She formed her argument very logically and it was very convincing. I can learn from this and use more numbers with my paper.