Reflection on Project 1 Draft

I reviewed Jayni and Isabel's posts for the project 1 draft.

Below I will answer questions regarding my first draft, helping me determine whether my first draft is complete and what i need to do to make it better for my final turn in.

AJC ajcann.wordpress.com. "Peer Review". 23 May 2008. Public Domain. 

Audience:
My audience is a QRG audience, someone who has an idea of what my controversy is about but is still seeking more information on select specific details. However, my peers/teacher is my exact audience, so I need to recognize that my audience might not know anything at all about my controversy.

I'm expected to convey easy to read but detailed information about my controversy. Only one of my peers edited my controversy, however she did not mention any confusions or misunderstandings about the information that I presented.

QRGs are expected to have a large amount of detailed information that is presented in a way that is easy to read/navigate. I have presented hyperlinks and short descriptions of the sources and sides of the controversy that I mentioned, so it is just enough to educate my audience without "insulting their expertise"

In terms of language used, QRGs can have more of a laid-back language not far from normal jargon. However, due to my controversy not being well known to most of the general public, I chose to take a more professional side and not use jargon that would make me seem biased or too laid back.

I used a direct tone with my audience as I was trying to convey information that feels reliable and up to date. I believe I carried that tone throughout my entire document.

Context:
The formatting requirements for this document are short paragraphs, headers, a title, and sufficient use of photographs. I provided this in my document.

In regards to content, I was expected to provide information regarding both sides of my controversy, sources from either side and their voice on the topic, hyperlinks, and back story/more information on each sides beliefs/fears in order to educate my audience. This was achieved.

In addition to my own ideas and voice (which I didn't provide too much of, I didn't want my document to read as biased) I have utilized the conventions of a QRG that I learned in class and the analysis of credibility/fears and ideas of my sources in an appropriate way in my document.

Savannah, when editing my document, found a lot of grammatical errors that I will correct for my final draft.