Peer Review 13b

Here is a person from another section that i peer reviewed.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • Gabby Dietrich. "Get the Lead Out: Flint Michigan Water Scandal".
   
• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • HYPERLINK to project (just look on her blog post) and my comment. 
  
  
• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed (1 point) 
  • I decided to comment on the genre form of her project.  So I looked at the conventions of a  video essay and see what she did and didn't do, and offer suggestions.
  
  
• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?) (5 points)
  • I think I helped her by giving suggestions that made her video essay more  interesting to viewers.  I suggested where the longer pauses should be, how to improve the "listenability" of her voice, and use of background music to provide more variety and add to her images. Also there wasn't enough opinion for an argument.
   
• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback (5 points)
  • All of the things I suggested above are what we talked about in class.  Without these, your project becomes rather monotonous and you lose the interest of the listeners.
  
  
• One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from (5 points) 
  • Your voice is not enough to interest readers.  Seriously, it doesn't matter how beautiful it is.  Without additional elements listeners lose interest.   
  • Also, adding opinion (with reason) will already make the story more captivating, as one is either agreeing or trying to understand the others side.
  
  

Peer Review 13a

Here is my peer review for a fellow student in my class, because apparently everyone needs to know that I peer reviewed them and what I told them.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • Mike Duffek. "Final-Draft".
   
• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • The HYPERLINK  to the project.
  
  
• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • I mostly just talked about the form elements that he did or did not include in his podcast. 
  
  
• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?) (5 points)
  • I suggested that he could perhaps use music to add to his story in the beginning in order to help set the scene and further set the mood.  I could have been slightly less scripted (not that it was bad!), since that would have made it feel even more story-like.
   
• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback (5 points)
  • Like I mentioned above, music can help set the mood and the place where the situation is taking place.  This in turn can further the story for the listener, especially when you're creating a podcast.
    
• One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from (5 points)
  • I admired the fact that he started off with a personal story.  It really captured listeners, as it is very vivid and emotional.  I didn't listen a ton to the rest of the podcast, but the story seemed to be the main reason why he greatly values privacy.  So it acted as a good segway. 

Reflection on Local Revision Process

So here are some of my struggles and success of this week.  I know you love to hear about though.  But seriously, my struggles are sort of entertaining sometimes....

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
   • iMovie worked for me.  That's all I have to say about that....
   • I was able to add some extra sound bytes that helped strengthened my point, without having to re-record anything..
    
2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
   • It was a little challenging to move around audio on iMovie.  It would sometimes cut other audio out when I'd move something in.
   • Finding time to do all of this with constant dance performances was also difficult. 
   
   
3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?
   • You mean beginning project 4? I have no idea because this project has no bearing on next week's project.
    
4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?
   • I feel pretty confident on it.  I think I'll do well.  I think?

Editorial Report 13b

In this post I will talk about YET ANOTHER section of the project that changed from the rough draft to the final project.

Audience Questions

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
   •  I added information about the male speaker in the news clip.
   • I also added an extra rhetorical question about if fracking is really necessary.  This was used to help better define my stance on the issue, and make the audience think more about the cost of the effects of the earthquakes.
   
   
2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
   • The form wasn't changed that drastically, but I think the additionalf speaking sections, help clear up speakers and reinforce an opinion.  The clearness of the speaker is also helped by putting the clip right before the speaking section.
   
   
   
   
   **Of rough draft, listen to 2:16-4:24
   **Of my final draft, listen to 3:02-5:15.

Editorial Report 13a

Here, I will compare my rough draft to my new and improved Final Draft.

Audience Questions

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
   • I added in a whole new section to the very beginning! Woah! 
   • I think that this helps my argumentative essay by adding where I stand on the issue, as well as better introducing the topic as a whole to the viewers.
    
2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
   • With the added section, I have created more of an introduction.  The music both in the background helps set a mood and setting.  It almost sounds country-like, so it sort of conveys Oklahoma.  
   • The additional points on where I stand on the issue, also help reinforce the topic of the piece as a whole.
    

***Since I just added all of this to the final draft,  just listen here to the first section from the beginning to 0:42.  My rough draft started just at 0:44.

Revised Post to Peer Reviewers

Hey all! Here will give you more information when peer reviewing.  Can't lie, it's going to be a little late for a lot of stuff since I do not want to have to rerecord everything. :)

Author Response

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.\
  • I know that several peer reviewers, as well as Bottai, have told me that my first drat was too neutral.  In order to try to add more opinion, I have added a beginning section and a couple additional sentences giving more of my point of view.
  
  
• Major issues or weaknesses in the “Fine Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those weaknesses)
  • I know it might still sound too neutral. :(
  • The volume levels between clips is not too consistent.  I'm trying to work on that...
   
• Major virtues or strengths in the “Fine Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those strengths)
  • I feel that my draft is well organized.
  • I think I have incorporated good audio clips and background music.
  • I think it actually sounds like an actual podcast, rather than just some disgruntled YouTube person. 
   

Fine draft coming soooooooooooon........

Peer Review 12b

In this blog post I will peer review someone who is outside of my class.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • I reviewed Erin Mcabe.  Her Video is titled just "Project 3 Rough Draft"
   
• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • Here is a link to the video. 
  
  
• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed (1 point) 
  • I chose to analyze form.  Here I looked at the conventions of a video essay and decided which ones she did well, and which she needed to improve upon.
   
• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?) (5 points)
  • I think I helped her by suggesting things that would make certain clips more cohesive with the rest of her video.    For instance, I talked about variance in her voice and adding an image with a clip of audio she presented.
  
  
• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback (5 points)
  • I talked about variance in the voice in order to captivate listeners.  Luckily her video has a lot of outside audio as well.  But an engaging voice can really improve a video essay.
   
• One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from (5 points)
  • She presented all of her video and audio in a very compelling way.  She gave very good background on Sea World and then began showing very saddening clips of whales.   I felt that that kind of made an impact: to see something so bright and cheery and then something very heartbreaking.

Peer Review 12a

Here is my first review post...

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • I reviewed Julia Davenport's podcast "Homelessness Halfway Done"
   
• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • Here is the hyperlink. 
  
  
• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • I chose to analyze form.  Here i talked about which genre conventions she did well, and others that she could apply to improve her project.
   
• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?) (5 points)
  • I think I helped her clear up a couple things that will make her readers better understand what she is saying.  One was a tech issue, but the other was the volume of background music (I couldn't hear her voice).  I also suggested that she repeat her solution at both the beginning and end in order to reinforce her stance.
   
• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback (5 points)
  • When listening to the genre examples,  I noticed that they were very clear with their points and often repeated them multiple times (in one way or another).  I also noticed how they effectively used background music to enhance their podcast.
  
  
• One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from (5 points)
  • I admired that she had a very even voice, and talked slowly.  That is something that I am constantly working on myself.

Reflection on Global Revision Process

Here's a look at the revision process that my podcast underwent.

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
   • I actually got a good recording of stuff.  Luckily, I know someone with a good-ass microphone, so my recording don't sound too bad!  Glad I graduated from voiceover.
   • I was able to find a good variety of sources, both audio and textual.
   • MY IMOVIE EXPORTED!!!!! :)
   
   
2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
   • Working with iMovie was a little challenging once again.  I keep adding audio but if I add too much at some places it will cut another clip short.
   • It was a little challenging to make the extra audio clips flow with the clips of me talking.  
3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?
   • I'm actually feeling a little optimistic about this upcoming week.  I think the only thing that might be problematic would be if it was found that my stance was too neutral.  That would then require me to re-record everything.  I don't want to do that.  I really don't.
    
4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?
   • Overall, I feel pretty good about the project.  I feel comfortable with how much progress I have made this week, and that finishing should not be too much of a problem.

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

Hello peer reviewers!!  Here is what I'd like to you to know about my draft so far.

• I'd like peer reviewer to know that not all my audio clips flow well with my voice recorded audio yet.  There is one that sounds a little redundant (the one talking about Boone Pickens), and I am deciding what to do with it exactly. 

• As of now, I feel as though of my major weakness might be that I am too neutral.  I feel like I do have an opinion on the issue and that I do include it, but I don't, perhaps, present if as strongly as others might.

 

• I think one of my strengths is the fact that I pulled from both audio and textual sources.  This was it sounds more like an actual report rather than a slue of audio clips.  Another strength is that I believe my report possess is good spacing of audio sources and background music clip.  I think they are spaced just enough to keep the reader's attention.

***Since posting this I realized that there was a clip that I omitted that involved Boone Pickens talking about how fracking has nothing to do with earthquakes.  It is not incredibly pertinent to the audio, so I might leave it out, but I thought I'd say this just to let peer reviewers know.

Here is the rough draft of podcast project.

Editorial Report 12b

Here is yet another BEAUTIFUL blog post by yours truly.  Get ready for me to explain this next thrilling revision!!

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
   • In terms of content, most of the changes were incredibly minor.  Before, I was going to take a section out that explained what Boone Pickens gave money too and how he was a big philanthropist.  Instead I decided to keep what I had originally said and then use my audio source to reinforce it further.  
   • I also added in a "booing crowd" noise in order to further convey my voice on the issue of Mary Fallin passing a law that banned fracking.
   
   
2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
   • I also changed minor ways in which the audio was pieced together.  For instance I tried to cut certain pieces in order to add more of a pause between speaking sections.
   • I also added in a "television like introduction to the beginning of the TV clip in the section to add more variety for the listener, and make it seem more like a television report. 
    

 Here is the link for my audio.  I am attaching the entire audio file, but the segment I would like you to listen to is 4:30-6:47.

Editorial Report 12a

Below I will talk about some of the differences between the two drafts I have created.  I would like everyone to know, that even though my new draft is better, it is by no means where it will be in the end.

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
   • In terms of content, I decided to add more of a narrative at the beginning of the piece.  It talks about what it might feel like to experience an earthquake.  I think this helps communication because it gives the audience more of an up-close and personal feeling that they might find in an earthquake.  Other than that, the content did not really change that much.
    
2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
   • A huge difference is that this is actually recorded audio.  Before I had just included a script.  I have also toyed with layering background noise to the beginning instead of just having a "stinger".  At this part I am describing what is happening in a potential earthquake, so I believe this is effective in helping set the scene for the listener. I did include a stinger as well, sort of let the audience think about what I will be talking about.
    

 Here is the link to my project so far.  Please listen from the beginning of the podcast to 1:08.

Peer Review for Kelly Reager

Here is the peer review for Kelly Reager of the 9:30 am class.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • "Production Report 11b" Kelly Reager.
   
• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • Here is the link to her blog post with comment. 
  
  
• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • I selected the content suggestion activity.  I so just evaluated her sources, checked to see how detailed the draft was, and made content suggestions wherever necessary.
   
• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?) (5 points)
  • I didn't feel as though there was that much to write on really. I guess she can just elaborate a little more on her sources in order for non-UA student member to get a better of idea of the UAlert website.  I felt that overall the paragraph just needed more research and concrete facts in it (unless it was an introductory section, in which case I was not aware).
   
• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback (5 points)
  • I talked about how she had to be more specific with why they neglected these issues.  Without more detailed information, the audience is left not having garnered much from the paper.
   
• One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from (5 points)
  • I admired how passionate she seems about the issue.  I'm sure she will make a great argument with all the facts she will find.

Peer Review for Emily Sutton

I peer reviewed Emily Sutton in our 12:30 pm class.

• The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • Production Report 11b.  Emily Sutton
  
  
• A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed (1 point)
  • Here is the link to the blog post with comment.
  
  
• An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed (1 point)
  •  I chose to do the content section.  I basically just looked at what she wrote, made suggestions on what she could add, told her if she was detailed enough, and did a quick evaluation of her sources.
  
  
• An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?) (5 points)
  • I think I helped her by mentioning that she should add more of her own voice and opinion rather than just focus on the raw facts.  That way it becomes more of an argument, rather than just a presentation of facts like the first project we did.
  
  
• An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback (5 points)
  • We usually talk about voice in class and how you need your own particular voice in whatever you write in order to engage the audience.  In this case, it is pertinent  that voice, and in particular opinion, be present in order to match the kind of project we are doing.
  
  
• One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from (5 points)
  • It personally made me think about how much opinion I am actually putting into my project in comparison to the amount of factual information that I have.   It also made me think even more about how i will incorporate my own citations into my work.
    

Reflection on Production Phase

Hey all!  Here are my thoughts on the production process, since I know you're all DYING to know ;)

Audience Questions

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
   • Well, I was able to get a pretty detailed script up and running, which was great!  I'm looking forward to the peer reviews on those sections, so that I can be even more confident when I begin recording myself and piecing it together with the audio clips.
   • I was able to find quite a few sources that give me reliable evidence.  I was able to get a good variety of national and local news too, which I believe will help strengthen my point more.
    
2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
   • My greatest challenges right now are finding out how to take audio off of some of these local new videos.  I need to do some more research on how to do this.
   • Just looking ahead, I'm wondering how I will be able to fluidly integrate the audio clips in with my speaking.  I want it to be as cohesive as possible.
    
3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?
   • I think that next week will be OK.  I have a little more time I believe, so I will be able to try to figure out all of this technology stuff.  History in this class shows us that I am particularly bad at this.  
   • I think I have a pretty good base to go off of though.
    
4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?
   • I'm pretty nervous about the project.  I think this is even going to be harder than the video essay because I'm going to have to try to create a setting with just my voice and background noise/music.  
   • Technology like this just makes me nervous too.  So much stuff can go wrong.   
   • In terms of preparation though, I feel pretty good!