Reflection of Project 1 Draft

After going through the difficult process of beginning my own revision process and peer reviewing, I can start to see the light at the end of the tunnel.  I have a much clear view of where I want my Quick Reference Guide to be in my final draft.  During the peer review, I read and gave suggestions to Isaak's, Namratha's, Sam's, and Swati's Quick Reference Guides.  Below I will address some basic questions about the audience and context.

Audience

1. Who am I trying to reach and who will actually read the document?
I am trying to reach the general population.  Those who know absolutely nothing about climate change, those who are aware that Obama visited Alaska, and possibly even those who have done solid research on the topic.  Most likely those who are knowledgeable about the topic are not likely to read a summary of the events, instead they will be drawn to developing news stories.  The general population is much more likely to click on a QRG about the general topic, should they happenstance upon it.  This is especially due to the heavy media output surrounding this controversy.  Although many are set in their beliefs and may not want to research, they may at least want something to refute.

2. What are the audience values and expectations?  Am I meeting those?
The audience assumes all of the information is directly from the author and is either all fact, a solid mixture of fact and opinion, or to some, 100% incorrect.  Their expectations are to see images and information presented in a credible manner.  Otherwise the comment section will go rampant with insults about credibility and communism.  I believe that I am close to meeting those standards.  I do not have enough images and an all audience friendly set of information, but I am close to that point.

3. How much information is enough?  How context should be provided?
The information has to represent both sides in a balanced matter.  There can be some bias, but very minimal, the audience tends to be keen on picking apart such indiscretions.  Context is almost more crucial than the information.  In my controversy, if I just mentioned there were 5 Chinese warships off the coast of Alaska, as many news sources did, there would be a massive outpouring of controversy centered comments.  Without context, the information is potentially useless to the audience or firing power to throw your facts right back at you.

4. What language is suitable for the audience?
The QRG is a mixture of formal and informal.  The language has to directly address the questions of the audience, which makes it inherently informal, but it also has to be precise enough to present understandable information.  There cannot be too much technical jargon nor slang.  This form has to apply to all parts of the general population, not just Twitter or the scientific field.

5. What tone is suitable?  Is my tone consistent?
My tone leans on the informal side, but I think after my revisions, the balance will be more apparent.  A lot of the informality came from some simple grammatical errors, which will be relatively easy to fix.

Unsplash "Audience crowd people" accessed via Pixabay

Uploaded in July CC0 Public Domain

Context

1. What are the formatting requirements?  Did I meet them?
The formatting requirements involved sub-headings, short paragraphs, an engaging lead, and a solid conclusion about the future.  I think my organization is where I need it to be, but some of my introductory paragraphs could use a bit less fluff and more engaging solid phrases.

2. What are the content requirements?  Did I meet them?
The content requirements were very comprehensive and covered a large variety of sources and types of analysis.  I am missing a few pieces on the leaders in the topic and will need to include more focused language, but overall I am very close to the content requirements.

3. Does my draft reflect gained knowledge or skills in addition to my own voice?
This particular deadline has been extremely helpful in realizing what mistakes in my writing I have been making and how I can easily fix them.  I have a much different perspective on how helpful peer review can be and how important revision is.  I can still be humorous and creative, but in my rambling, I need to cut down on some of the grammatical mistakes.

4. Have I addressed the grammatical issues highlighted in the previous assignments?
I am still editing my grammatical mistakes.  It is a slow process to find all of the dangling modifiers and find the exact wording to use.  However, after reading the book, I have a good plan for further revision.