Peer Review for Michaela Harrington

This is my peer review for a student's project who is not in my section.

The name of the title and author for the project you reviewed (1 point)

Michaela's project does not yet have a title.

A working hyperlink to the project you reviewed (1 point)

Michaela's Content Outline

An explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you reviewed (1 point)

I chose to review Michaela's content outline because I just wanted to get a feel for how other people are organizing their projects as far as where they choose to make their comparisons and how they plan on constructing their intro and outro.
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?) (5 points)

I encouraged Michaela to either take a more solid stance for or against fracking, or if nothing else justify how she is viewing the topic as simply a question of "how did this arrive" or suggest a solution for it. Right now it seems too neutral.

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 (5 points)

I commented on Michaela's labels for her paragraphs as they pertained to the organization of her outline as it stands. It is clear she had put in thought to the chronological flow of her project.
One thing about their work that you admired or think you could learn from (5 points)

I like how simple her outline was to read. I think I'll go back and make an outline for my own benefit that does not include the questions I had to answer for the blog post, but rather so I can just see a 'zoomed out' view of how I picture my project.