Peer Review for Rigo Avila

I chose to take a closer look at Rigo's podcast, and provide editorial comments within the realm of form.

The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed

Rigo Avila. I could not find the title of his podcast.

A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed

Rigo's Project (and my comment).

An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed

I chose to examine form for this podcast because I was intrigued as to why the project was split into two podcasts.

An explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in other words, how did you help them make their work better?)

I think that this podcast was already very easy to listen to, but it really would have put it over the top if there was more external content. This could really be of any type, too. I suggested more input from his interviewees, some music, or if not music at least some ambient sounds. This would help his final draft be just that much better because it continuously captures the listener's attention because there is always something new to listen to.

An explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into your feedback

I incorporated both comments on the introduction and comments on his sources in his podcast. For the introduction, I said it was fine that he didn't have a stinger (a common but not necessary podcast convention) because, as a listener, you still understood what you were going to hear in the podcast very soon into its start. For his sources, I said he might want to expand on the amount and frequency of their use.

One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from

Rigo's voice was so conversational and outgoing! I think that is what, in part, made the podcast easy to listen to. It sounded like we were just joking along the whole time!