Reflection on Project 3 Draft

I peer reviewed two drafts and also had my draft reviewed,  so this post is about reflecting on both of these tasks. 

I reviewed Ann Emilie and Tom's project 3 drafts. 

• Ann Emilie's peer review sheet
• Tom's peer review sheet

1.My draft was reviewed by Mark Lubniewski.

2. Mark's feedback in the genre category was really helpful because it seemed like most of my formatting choices like pictures and graphics had the effect that I was hoping. He suggested changing the title so it fits the article better and is less ambiguous and I agree. I was concerned when he thought that my article was a refutation argument because it is supposed to be an evaluative argument. I will have to go back and edit certain sections to make it more explicit that I am proposing a solution to the designer baby debate. Some of his feedback was hard to understand because he seemed to be talking a lot about the topic of my article and a lot of his comments were not things I was trying to prove, this could possibly be because he already is knowledgeable about the subject.

3. My argumentation needs the most revision because I need it to be clear that I am providing a solution to an existing problem. I will do this by explicitly stating in my article that current reproductive technology is a good solution to calm fears over the designer baby debate and concerns about research in that technology.

4. I feel really good about where my article is right now. I have to make some changes to improve clarity and make sure my purpose is clear, but I have a really good base to go off of. The things that were brought up in the conferences align with the comments made on the peer review so I now I know what to work on.

Aneta Szpyrka. "Silver Reflection." 24 July 2006 via Flickr. Creative Commons.