Reflection on Project 1 Draft

In this post I will go over the various constructive criticisms of my draft of the quick reference guide.
I commented on Chloe Claire Ashley Wills's and Charles Novak'  QRG's.

Porbital "Perfect Reflection" via Deviantart Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

 Audience:

• Who is reading this QRG: The QRG is technically only going to be read by my peers and my professor, but I am writing as if it is going to be read by anyone on the internet who wants to learn more about the issue of artificial intelligence. 

•  What are their values/expectations: They expect to get a relatively full understanding of the issue based on the information that I provide them.

• How much info do I need to give them: The QRG is essentially all information, so I need to give as much information as possible or the QRG will not be effective. 

•  The language needs to be relatively academic, though not entirely formal.  It needs to convey emotion but efficiently provide information and not go onto a tangent.

• What tone should I use: I should use a tone that is informative, as if a teacher in a lesson.  I should use it the whole time in order to be effective in providing the information I do.

 Context:

• What are the formatting requirements: It is required to follow the strict formatting requirements of the quick reference guide genre, including title, relevant image and more.   My QRG meets these requirements.

• Content: The  content requirements are similar to the formatting requirements and overlap in some places.  I meet the requirements in my QRG.

•  Does this reflect my knowledge gained: Yes it reflects my knowledge gained on the subject that I am writing about and my knowledge of the QRG genre and its conventions.

•   Have I addressed any grammatical issues: I have addressed the grammatical issues that have been pointed out to me.