The first peer review I am conducting is Evan Rosser's podcast. Evan posted a script of his podcast instead of audio because he was having technical difficulties uploading the audio, however the actual script made it easier for me to peer review it.
I decided to do a peer review based on content for his rough cut because without hearing the actual podcast, I could not accurately judge the form.
As I read through Evan's podcast script I felt as though he did an excellent job explaining the genre of science writing he decided to focus on. It was very informative and had a lot of specific details within it. Also, Evan also wrote in where music would be inserted, he is using different music for two transitions, which I thought was a good idea and something I may try to incorporate into my project.
A couple of content suggestions I have for Evan:
1. I would explain a bit about what exactly the "specs and slide desks" are before you jump right into the technical part of it (can't think of a better way to phrase that, hopefully you get what I mean)
2. Also, where you mention the pseudocode and java codes, I would explain a bit more about exactly what a pseudocode is, just to give the listener a basis for what you're talking about.
3. I like how you talked about how the specs and slide desks are relevant to you but I would also talk more about how these specs and slide desks are used in the professional world as well. Maybe find some examples to talk about? Or talk more about how your interviewee used them.
Overall I think he did a great job!
No comments:
Post a Comment