Peer Review 2

President Bush Photograph Office.
George H W Bush at Age One and One-Half.
 1925

I reviewed David's video essay draft  and Eren's QRG draft. My review for Eren can be found here and David's can be found here.

The clearest thing that I noticed is that it is much easier to show your personality in a video essay than in a QRG. I was worried that any sarcasm or borderline funny comments about genocide wouldn't read very well in a QRG and I was right. Also, it's very clear which aspects of this project have been well researched and which ones haven't. If I thought I could slide by with a few "a lot"s and "many"s before, I know that I can't now. Each one whittled the author's credibility. It's interesting that it's not really something you can build in one project, but you can definitely destroy it.

Strengths 

1. My initial draft is consistent with QRG structure.
2. I was able to (almost) adequately explain a very complex situation in a digestible way.
3. I'm educating my peers about a very important issue that they probably wouldn't have otherwise heard about. That's enough for me, even if I don't get a good grade on this project.

Weaknesses

1. My draft does not provide the amount of background information that the average reader probably needs. Neither the scandal nor the underlying conflict garner much attention in the media.
2. I don't clearly explain the motivation of all of the stakeholders.
3. I need to add in graphics and interesting formatting.