Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

 As the final deadline is upon us, I realize that there is deed that Have gone undone, questions that have gone unanswered. It is time for me to get rid of all of these loose ends...


Explain, with some specificity, your thoughts and feelings about the following:
  • Key information about your particular project that you would like anyone who peer reviews your draft to know

    One key thing that my peer reviewers should is that I had a sudden change of heart for my format. I think that I should have 4 instead of 3 sections. However, the reason that I have two right now was because my conclusion was a lot shorter than expected. I do have ideas on how to expand it though, which I will begin working on promptly.

  • Major issues or weaknesses in the “Rough Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those weaknesses)

    My major issue I think is that I something was talking too fast in the podcast. The way I see it, I can redo it to talk slower, or use some of Audocity's effects to slow me down. Another weakness is that my transitions began to slack towards the end. 

    I think a major strength was my introduction. I thought that it  was a real swell made attention grabber that would make anyone want to continue listening to my podcasts. Another strength is in my method of engaging the audiences. Nonetheless, I feel like I should include more of this.  
  • Major virtues or strengths in the “Rough Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those strengths).

 I think a major strength was my introduction. I thought that it  was a real swell made attention grabber that would make anyone want to continue listening to my podcasts. Another strength is in my method of engaging the audiences. Nonetheless, I feel like I should include more of this.

AND after all of that, I present to you, podcast 1 and podcast 2, with two sequels coming soon. 
AND just in case, here is my script
 

3 comments:

  1. I think your podcast is really coming along, entertaining to listen to and has good amount of sources. I do have a content suggestion for you; at least from what I've read in your script I think you're being too broad on your examples for the ethos and pathos. While you are specifically focusing on them I think you're giving too many examples under each instead of focusing only on a few and going into heavily detail on how those affect writing in engineering. As Bottai always emphasizes "specificity".

    Hope this is helpful! Good luck finishing!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice Podcasts! Here is my review I hope it is helpful:
    http://barnettben.blogspot.com/2016/03/peer-review-9a.html

    ReplyDelete

  3. You used a great introduction in both podcasts! The fact that you addressed your audience several times in the first few minutes really made me want to keep listening. No stinger, no problem! The only absence I noticed was ambience noise/music. Your creativity with this project was really outstanding though; although there was not a whole lot of speaking from your interviewees. I think that is really what you could change for your final draft, simply add more input from external sources!

    I really enjoyed listening!

    ReplyDelete