Reflection on Project 2 Draft

Now that I am done with my first draft and the first bit of peer review (I'm not sure if there is more) I am going to answer questions from the book on what I have learned overall about my own project from peer reviewing. The two peers whose papers I commented on were Carrie Belle and Grace. 

Meme Generator "X ALL THE THINGS" via memegenerator.net

Identifiable and specific thesis?

I actually am rather proud of my thesis. Of course if someone tore it apart I wouldn't be overly attached to it, but in peer review I was told that my thesis was a good introduction and really strong. I think the way I got around just doing the formulaic "ethos pathos logic" worked out alright for me. 

Organization

Really I just decided to lump the ideas that seemed to lead into each other together, while avoiding the "ethos pathos logos" structure. In the first paragraph I talked about the author's familiarity with her audience and blended in American culture and beliefs. I talk about how this gives her credibility, as well as a bit of emotion.  I don't know if this is too unfocused of me, so I'll double check to make sure that it stays on track. 

The second paragraph I wrote mostly about logical appeal, specifically the transcript of Koko's chat since I thought this was incredibly important for the reader. Then I transition into how this logic directly leads to an emotional response that makes her gain credibility. But mostly this paragraph is focused on logos, and I think I supported and focused it well. 

In the third paragraph I tried to mostly analyze the analytical claim of the paper, and how the author's overall goal can contribute to their rhetoric. However in peer review I was told that this paragraph wasn't as strong as the other ones. Maybe adding some more specifics and more analysis would help to make the paragraph stronger, but I think it stays focused pretty well. 

Did I analyze and identify the important elements of rhetorical situation?

I analyzed and identified audience, author, a bit of context, message, and all of the appeals in my essay. So I actually touched on all of them at least briefly (I hope this isn't a bad thing) but I focused more on  the main ones like audience, author, and logic that I think were most instrumental to the article's rhetoric. 

Did I explain how and why these strategies were used? Did I discuss the effects of the strategies? 

This was an aspect that I felt I did pretty well on. I tried to make sure that after every statement I made about rhetorical strategies or situations, I immediately analyzed it for why it mattered. I tried to include how the strategies made the reader feel and how the author intended for the reader to feel. 

Am I using evidence in a meaningful way and explaining relevance?

When looking for evidence I tried to find quotes that were the most chocked full of connotation and rhetoric. I put a lot of effort into finding the BEST quote for each situation and I think I effectively made them relevant and explained them in the context of my essay. 

Did I leave the reader wanting more and answer the "so what" question? 

To be honest the conclusion is DEFINITELY the place I need the most work. I really struggled to not make it a summary of my essay. But I had a hard time thinking of any other way that would work for me. So I would have to say that no, I don't leave the reader wanting more, and actually wrap up my essay which I will definitely be trying to fix. And I ABSOLUTELY need to add in the "so what" question because right now it is a really bland and formulaic conclusion. And wow what a lame conclusion sentence. I need to work on my conclusion a LOT.