Peer Review 2

 Review, Revive, and Review Some More
First of I would like to start of by saying that:

Avila, Rigoberto. "The Amount of Quick Reference Guides" 2/12/2016 via imgflip. Adaptation from New York Gubernatorial Debate, 2010.

I struggled to find to find a project that was not a quick reference guide with less then 5 comments. At a point I almost decided to break protocol and just peer review another quick reference guide because:

1. I was running out of options and more importantly
2. It seemed a bit unfair that the few drafts that were not QRG were getting all the love while there was some QRG that had received no attention at all. It seemed like it would have been the right thing to do. That way these individuals can also get some further feedback on their drafts. 

Why I decided to stick to protocol? Well honestly, I do not really know. For the sake of the grade maybe or possibly because I am not yet ready to initiate my rebellion. Anyways, enough of that. Back to business.

Business
For this peer review, I reviewed  Jackson Starmer's Quick Reference Guide on "The Math Wars" and Marvin Chaires' Essay on "The Flint Water Crisis." My peer review document for Jackson Starmer is here, and for Marvin Chaires is here.

 One thing that I learned about my own project was that it doesn't really have a unique voice. Secondly, I learned that the quick reference guide should have more links and interactions for the reader. I feel like the addition of this will improve the overall quality of my Quick Reference Guide.

The top 3 issues are:

1. My neglect of my stake holders in the sense that I did not really describe them.
2.  The lack of links and interactive features.
3. Elaboration on key concepts such as why NATO began to write a 300 page manual in the first place.

To improve my situation with my stakeholders, I plan on adding proper introductions to them and looking through my sources to see if I can find more direct quotes from them. The links and interactive features issues can be fixed by looking through my QRG and seeing which things could essentially run of or could use a video to better explain the concept. The third issue can be addressed by again going to my sources, scanning them for information on the topic that needs elaboration, and follow the links within those articles.

One strength was the use of voice that I had. I think like I made the reader feel, to a certain extent, that this needs to be addressed quickly or the world will blow up! I can use quotations from the "experts" to further strength this use of voice. Well not really, but you catch my drift. Another strength was that it was highly informational. I think that by reading this, someone can get an adequate idea of what Stuxnet is. I need to build on this to have the same effect on the other parts and components of my QRG, such as when I properly introduce my stake holders.