Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In the post below I will be answering the six questions found on page 197 of A Student's Guide as well as identifying whose drafts I reviewed.

For Project 2 peer review I looked over the rough drafts of Mira and Casey

Alvaro. "Water Pyramid". June 24, 2009 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

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

• My thesis is identifiable and spans over the space of three sentences. However, only two of these sentences could be considered thesis worthy. I identify two specific strategies used by Murphy; the use of expert opinions and visual dynamics.

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?

• My paragraphs seemed to be somewhat scattered. I went from providing some context on the documentary to being very ambiguous and addressing multiple topics at once. I know what points of evidence I will be using, but have not incorporated them into my paper.

3. Did you clearly identify and analyze several important elements of the text's rhetorical situation and/or structure?

• I have clearly identified several of the elements of the text's rhetorical situation, but have done a poor job at analyzing them. My ideas are very disjunct and need to be reorganized and reworded in order to be effective.

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 addressed how the rhetorical strategies were used by Murphy and have sort of addressed why they were used, but it could be explained more in depth. For most paragraphs I have explained the effects these strategies have on the audience, but they are kind of just thrown in and disrupt the flow of my paper.

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

• Looking back over my draft, I've realized that I explained the evidence's importance without actually including the specific pieces of evidence.

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

• I have not addressed either of these in my conclusion. So far, I have basically restated my thesis and that is it. I still need to answer the "so what" question and end my paper in a way that leaves readers wanting more.

There are many different things I plan on revising. Most of my paragraphs contain suitable explanation, but are missing the evidence that created the analysis and the explanation. The transitions between paragraphs are also lacking and could use some touch-ups. I think the best thing for me to start with is reading my current draft out loud and correcting any glaring errors. From there I will reorganize some of my paragraphs to focus on only one point and to connect ideas to one another throughout the paper.