Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In this post, I will answer a series of questions from Student's Guide in order to evaluate my peer review experience.  For this process, I peer reviewed Michael's and Bri's project 2 drafts.

Mummelgrummel, "Student writing takes many shapes in Freshman writing classes, including handwritten freewriting and notetaking." 02/08/13 via Wikipedia. Attribution Share-Alike License.

1. Do you have an identifiable thesis? Does it point to the specific rhetorical strategies that you analyze in your essay, or are you merely using vague terms like ethos, pathos, and logos?

I think my thesis is very identifiable. I spent a lot of time on it, working to make sure it was specific about exactly what rhetorical strategies I am going to talk about in my paper. I pointed to three specific strategies, rather than using the terms ethos, pathos, and logos to structure my argument.

2. How have you decided to organize your essay? Does each paragraph have a central point that is supported with evidence from the text and in-depth analysis?

I decided to organize my essay by following the layout I put forth in my thesis. I tried to make each paragraph focus on a specific rhetorical strategy, and then I provided at least one quote for evidence to back up my central point. I might need to work on adding some more analysis, however, as some of my paragraphs seem to have more evidence than analysis. Also, some of my paragraphs do have some excessive information that strays from the main point, so that's something that I will also need to revise before I submit this project.

3. Did you identify and analyze the five elements of the rhetorical situation?

This is one area that could definitely use more analysis in my essay. I briefly mentioned the author's credentials, and I made a broad generalization of who the audience might be. However, I think these could be elaborated on to strengthen my argument. In addition, I did give some context for the debate about 3-D printing occurring in the field, but I did not give much context on the article. I could fix this by adding some information about the medium the article was printed in, and how this might affect the author's argument.

4. Did you explain how and why certain rhetorical strategies were employed? Did you discuss what effects these strategies have on the intended audience and overall effectiveness of the text?

I did explain the rhetorical strategies that were used in the text, and I gave some analysis on how effective these were in the context of the audience and the overall text. I tried to focus on why the author might have chosen these particular strategies over other strategies, and I related this back to the rhetorical situation of the text. I do think this could use some more analysis, maybe by addressing more specifically how these strategies were used throughout the text.

5. Are you thoughtfully using evidence in each paragraph? Do you mention specific examples from the text and explain why they are relevant?

I did use evidence in each paragraph, mainly in the form of quotes. I think I did a good job introducing each example and relating it back to the main point of each paragraph. One suggestion I received is that it might be helpful to include paraphrases as well as direct quotations, just so that my paragraphs aren't overwhelmed with quotations. This is a piece of advice that I might find useful as I am revising my essay.

6. Do you leave your reader wanting more? Do you answer the "so what" question in your conclusion?

My conclusion was more of a summary of my main points, rather than a statement of why the paper matters. I might want to add some type of "so what" statement at the end, just to show that this conversation is relevant outside of my paper.