Okay, in general I thought this peer review process exceeded our last attempt. I think this can be attributed to the rating system that was implemented this time around. In my opinion the ratings helped us to give more elaborate responses (at least when I was writing them) because I wanted to explain my comments based on the four criteria in the ratings. This caused me to focus more on picking out what I thought was exemplary or needed improvement in my classmate’s essays and so my responses became longer and I think more helpful too. Although if someone wasn’t as inclined to explain themselves as much as I do then perhaps the rating system could be looked at as an abbreviated way to peer-review; then it would be a pitfall for the process if a person where to only give a rating of stars and omits any substantial feedback.
The second part of this peer-review was kind of fun too, I had a fellow housemate first watch the ads and then he read through my essay. I was most concerned with how much he was going to comprehend in terms of a theme as opposed to the details of my analysis. After he read my essay the first question was why; why was I writing this essay, what for? I asked him what he thought the purpose was and his response was that ancient rhetoric rules still apply to things we encounter today. I told him that I wanted to look for something more than that with my essay and after a bit of discussion we came to a pretty awesome conclusion that I will incorporate. Other points my housemate suggested were similar to some responses that classmates give; in regards to moving up my thesis and introduction of tv ads from the 3rd and 4th paragraph to the first or second. I agree with this rearrangement and am currently working at my revisions. I also think it is wise to only talk about one commercial. Even though my draft includes two commercials, the point of that was to see which analysis became more useful for my means.
