I really feel proud about the feedback I offered to the group members in my second peer review. I put a lot of time and effort into the peer review for my second project and I think it clearly shows. For my first peer review I think I missed the mark. I found myself not providing feedback that was as useful as it could have been to my group members. This falls back on me, but I took accountability and used it to improve. The problem with the feedback I gave for our first writing project, was it was pretty general. I didn’t get into enough complexity with each comment where I felt like my members could get enough out of the comment to change their writing in a meaningful way. With that being said, by taking this approach I was able to stay largely positive with my comments which was good, but I wasn’t able to provide my members with enough valuable feedback which wasn’t. With that being said, for our second opportunity to give feedback in our second major writing project I focused on being as honest as I possibly could, in a nice manner. This  resulted in comments that were deep and complex and focused on material in the essay that I felt like they could improve on. This is where my review differed from first to my second. In my first I would explain what didn’t work well. But i stopped their. For this peer review, I explained what didn’t work, or what did work well, and then went the further mile and said why and offered a potential solution to how they could improve it. I feel like this was much more valuable and provided my fellow group members with something they could better work with to improve their writing. This is highlighted below in the attached pdf, in the first paragraph of the essay I peer reviewed. In the first paragraph alone I wrote three different comments, that each explained what I thought they could improve and how they could improve it: :

 Again, a word of caution here: “i feel saying that Haidt and Turkle sharing the same perspective of phones and technology is a bit of Stretch. I feel something more appropriate to say is they have a similar perspective. I feel you don’t want to have an absolute here, especially when it’s comparing the perspective of two different “(Ian Peer review).

In this comment not only did I explain what I felt could be improved, in talking about the perspective between Haidt and Turkle, I explained how they could potentially improve it. This shows how I’ve learned, grown and improved as a peer reviewer through the class. 

My chosen Peer Review for project 2