Peer Reviews of Content Outlines

Now that I have finished the production and reflection aspects of deadline 10, I’m going through other people’s work, learning from it, and reviewing it.

Peer Review A for Rhiannon Bauer

I reviewed Rhiannon’s content outline. I focused on the wealth of concrete evidence and specific sources because that seemed to be the main part that was lacking. I consulted the description of the differences between compliments and constructive criticism on page 70 of the student guide and tried to include both.

I helped Rhiannon make her content better by explaining my curiosity about the evidence she might use as well as by pointing out an area that would benefit from some concision.

I really admire the way that Rhiannon’s passion shows in her writing. Even just in her content outline you can see her personal investment in the topic. It makes her writing more captivating and engaging.

Peer Review B for Jacob Corbin

I also reviewed Jacob Corbin’s content outline.  I also focused on wealth of concrete evidence and specific sources because there seemed to be a similar lack. I thought the differences between compliments and constructive criticism from the Student Guide would be similarly helpful in reviewing Jacob’s draft so I tried to incorporate both.

This time I focused on questions that could result in further development of an outline. I asked about evidence, content, and content clarification. I usually find it helpful when people ask me questions about my work to help me flush it out.

I really admired the way that he incorporated the conventions of a podcast so seamlessly. Even in an outline the conventions of a podcast - like an introduction, engaging the audience, using a casual tone.