Reflection on Project Draft 3

In the post below I have identified whose drafts I have peer reviewed and how I am feeling about my draft after this week.

PhotoGraham. "Riddle No. 5 - The Globe (lots of clues!)". November 6, 2006 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

For this peer review I looked over the drafts of Andrea and Hallye.

1. Who reviewed your Project 3 rough draft?

• Chloe has reviewed my Project 3 draft. 

2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received? Be explicit and clear. Tell me what helped or what confused you about the feedback you got.

• I feel like all of the points made, aside from the one on adding more statistics instead of normal pictures, were great. I agree with all of the points she has made. Going from that my topic is too broad and it is unclear, down to keeping in mind the audience I want to target. Initially, I wanted to disagree with her point on writing my article in third person, as I found it much easier to present my voice in first person, but after some more thinking I believe that making this switch will establish more credibility for myself and clear up my topic. It also showed me how being so broad can switch the purpose of your argument. I thought that I was writing a refutation argument, but apparently it looks like I wrote a con argument without realizing it. I think that it'll be much more effective to write this article as a con argument because I am focusing more on the broader aspects of geoengineering and I am not refuting a specific publishing or anything. Overall, her advice was very helpful and has given me much insight into what I need to work on.

3. What aspects of Project 3 need to most work going forward [Audience, Purpose, Argumentation, or Genre]? How do you plan on addressing these areas? 

• My purpose needs the most work out of all of these areas. I feel like I have shifted away from geoengineering and delved into the more broad concept of global warming. I need to re-narrow my focus by removing excess information and centering in on the fallacies of geoengineering. My argumentation could also be more clear. I am stating why I think geoengineering should be refuted, but the mixture of global warming issues makes my argument more vague. By diverting my topic my audience becomes lost and it appears like I'm creating a con argument. After a lot of consideration I have chosen to shift my argument from a refutation to a con position as I feel like it better serves the point I am trying to make.

4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?

• Clarity, clarity, clarity. I definitely could use more clarity in my paragraphs. As always, I have a tendency to ramble or become side-tracked in my thoughts, which causes my audience to become confused. I believe that I have incorporated enough emotion to show my audience that geoengineering is dangerous, but I think I have also incorporated too much information on global warming, creating mixed emotions.