Peer Review Guide – L3 Reskinning with Rhetorical Intent

[INFORMATION TO BE UPDATED – DO NOT USE]

For this assignment you can have up to three peer reviewers. Peer reviewer one is tasked with providing audio feedback on the visual/material representation offered by the “reskinning”; peer reviewer two is tasked with the editors role in exploring the written textual elements of this work; peer-reviewer three is tasked with identifying strengths and areas of improvement for the project.

Peer-Reviewer 1: Focus on the visual/material representation. Do not read parts 1 or 3. Just focus on the reskinning itself. Provide feedback in three levels:
Macro – what is your overall response/impression to the representation. Does it work aesthetically (in relation to its own redesigned elements and/or in its gestures toward the original aesthetics of the game)?
Messo – look at the playable representation. Does it make sense? What more do you need to know in order to understand the play activity itself? Imagine that you do not know what game it borrows from: what else would you need to know, what have they left out?
Micro – focus on each individual element and provide critical feedback about the smallest of issues – i.e., if they are off by one pixel on a representation (and it isn’t intentional), mark it, comment on it, make them aware of it.
[You need to respond to these project in audio form. Send the students your audio commentary addressing these three areas of focus]

Peer-Reviewer 2: Read through all the written documents like an editor. Mark all writing-level mishaps, make notes about confusing sentences, offer alternatives to word selection, and the like. Feel free to comment on content issues as well, but this is a writing-level approach to the text.
* There should be marks on their drafts.
* Be sure to initial the draft you reviewed.

Peer-Reviewer 3: Review all three parts of the project. Tell the authors, in writing,
(a) what do you see as the clear strengths of this project (use full sentences)
(b) what elements, if any, do you thing could be improved (and how would you improve them)
(c) what have you learned from reviewing their project.

Authors should revise their work based on the feedback from the peer review and include all drafts and edited/marked copies with the final version.

——

Peer-Reviewers – for thorough and effective reviews, peer reviewers can earn up to 25 points for a review.

Peer-Reviewee (i.e., author) – Authors who take the feedback into consideration before producing their final draft will receive 10 points per review (max of 3 reviews).