In this learning outcome, I will talk about a peer review that I did for the multimodal project. The reason that I chose this peer review above is that I thought that this paper was well developed and that I provided good feedback to the two people that I worked with. I provided specific feedback that closed in on global issues of their papers. How I usually go about reviewing a peers paper is I read it once through before digging into it. After that first reading, I am now more prepared to ignore the conventional errors and better prepared to focus on the larger ideas and larger sentence structure errors that present themselves. As I point out in Camden’s letter in reference to his introductory paragraph, “I felt that your essay was very well developed and contained some nice, thought out ideas. These ideas, however, need to be shortened or broken up into component parts in order for them to be understandable.” Then in Daisy’s letter, I point out a more global issue, “As well, finding a way to make introducing your source right off the bat, a viable option. Whether that may be swapping the introductions with another claim.” These two different pieces of feedback demonstrate my growth as a reviewer because I can identify useful and intricate details that benefit the writer.
