After peer reviewing Deborah's and Jon's Draft I got to understand a little bit more of how the style of the QRG genre is different within their field. I also gained some insight on the controversial topics they wrote on. Overall I didn't feel that a complete restructure was needed for their drafts.
In my own draft, This peer review process has encouraged me to give some more major figures.I feel that my QRG has accomplished its task of educating on my controversial topic and fulfills most of the requirements on the rubric to reach an A. I did not make the QRG an argument since it was meant to be informational. The thesis has been clear to peers outside of the ENG 102 course that have reviewed the QRG for me.The QRG covered the same topic from the perspective of 3 major groups, the state government, the scientific community and the native Hawaiians. I made sure to describe how each is involved and the relationships between each group.This QRG will most likely be read by the scientific community and the native Hawaiians the most, followed by academia.The issue is polarizing so most readers will tend to be "for" or "against" the construction, but do not consider the less known older remaining issue that has not been addressed. Because of the ease of bias without inspection, I did my best to include the older issues that lead to this controversy. I did my absolute best to keep the information under one page without images (~600 words) and also tried to have a formal tone of voice that was consistent throughout.
No comments:
Post a Comment