Reflection on Project 1 Draft

     I reviewed the draft from the author: Adam Karsten.

     Through the review process thus far, I have learned a good amount in relation to QRG's.  I learned that in order for your point to come across fluently and seem reliable, you must have strong grammar and an even better organization.  I think my biggest issue is dealing with what order things should go in and what should be said/left out of my sections.
     The audience of my paper is primarily my teacher and my classmates, but I do not want my paper to sway their opinion of robots in the future in any direction. My goal is to have a very middle-sided paper so that I do not portray more emotion to one side or the other. I think that I have met my expectations with what I want to accomplish with this QRG. I have a good understanding about how I feel on the matter, and I feel that my paper gives a great deal of information regarding the controversy. I think that it is informative, and it is informational in an easy to find sense as well. I personally feel as though a very casual language can be used for my QRG. I think that it obviously needs to be informative, but I see no reason that it has to ridiculously professional.  For example, there are some times where I throw a little joke or something in with the information to keep the attitude friendly. I do not want this paper to intimidate anyone. I just want to inform readers of the issue at hand, and let them decide whose side they are on. I use a combination of past and present tone depending on if I am citing a quote or if I am giving information directly from my thoughts.
    Overall, the reviewing process has helped to see what to do and what not to do. It has shown me that unclear sentences can really hurt the overall reliability and enjoyability of the QRG. I hope that by looking over my own QRG, along with others', I will be able to perfect the language in my report so that it is as clear and concise as I need it to be.