Peer Review for Mike Duffek

This post made me look back at my own rhetorical analysis and make sure that it was good enough and conveyed my understanding of the project as well.

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

I reviewed Mike Duffek’s Rhetorical Analysis post.

• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed (1 point)

Mike's project can be found here

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

The activity I selected was the brainstorming activity which helps add content ideas and ways to convey the author’s ideas in a more clear way.

• 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 point out to Mike that he needs to add the details that are needed from the rhetorical analysis post. I think he did what he felt he needed to do, but it should help him if he articulates his thoughts a little more.

• 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 helped with Mike’s summary and analysis. He needs to add more evidence into this post of his understanding of Project 3 and its details.

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

He really is confident in what he brings to his projects that other people cannot. I need to focus on that for myself as well and know that my Project will not be similar to anyone else’s.