Peer Review 1

For the peer review I went over Erica Mohr's Quick Reference Guide on the Thirty Meter Telescope Controversy.

Here is my rubric too: Click Here

Reviewing this draft showed me how much I neglected my Stake holders! I have at max two that are well described. The rest are mentioned, but that it about it. Furthermore, most of my stake holders are lacking their own statements their own statements. I need to add more quotes, tweets and media clippings instead of paraphrasing.

Goldstein, Linda. "Protesting Students Invoking Stakeholder Theory at Shimer College in 2010" 2/20/2010 via wikipedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 unported

I did see that my draft did have a good format that makes it easy for my readers to digest it. I also have a good amount of pictures and graphs. As for a mistake that I want to avoid, I need to give all of my stake holders relatively equal amounts of stage time. Another mistake that I want to avoid that I saw in Erica's QRG was that there was a lack of formatting.

An effective decision that Erica made in here QRG was here vivid description of here stake holders and how the location ties into the whole controversy. Another smart decision was the description of the cultural values that lead to the eruption of this controversy. Erica's treatment of her stake holders was far superior than mine. I hope to learn from this so that my QRG can thrive.