Peer Review for Benjamen Meyer

In this blog post,much like my last post, I will be explaining and breaking down the comments I left on Ben's rough cut QRG excerpt.

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

• Benjamen Meyer

2. A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed

• You can find my comments on Ben's blog here

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

• I reviewed one of the two rough cuts for project 3. I read Ben's outline excerpt and then read a rough cut of his content for his QRG. He had included a section asking for advice on form so I commented on form and genre conventions for a QRG.

4. 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 was helpful in giving advice on how to achieve the genre conventions that he felt were lacking. He asked specifically for advice concerning Hyperlinks so that's what I provided him with. I think I helped him establish a sense of what elements still needed to be added in order for him to create a successful QRG

5. 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 advice from the genre conventions page on d2l as well as the things we've talked about in class. During project 2 we talked about the genre conventions at length and we talked about QRG's quite a bit in my group for project one. I also drew upon knowledge I already have from doing a QRG myself.

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

• His QRG, though not really a QRG right now, is written in short informational bursts like it needs to be! He was very successful in getting his point across in just a few words and that is exactly whata QRG needs to be.