The first peer review comments we did in class were on our “Grades” essay. For this particular peer review we didn’t really have a rubric to follow so we did our comments based off of our previous ways of editing. In this piece by Nick Lakeman, I mostly commented on ways to reword the sentence for example, I commented “Throughout my academic career…” to replace “For my whole life…” This peer review comment is not very helpful in improving the writing like the techniques we have learned and use today. More recently we have written a piece on Big Data, we also had to do peer comments but this time we designed the rubric for them in our small groups. This rubric gave us a good outline to follow so that our comments were effective in helping the writer make improvements. This time through we focused making comments on the main argument, claims, naysayers, MLA citations, and analyzing sources. In Andrew Murphy’s piece on big data I made a comment on his naysayer, “N: Good naysayer, do you have two? Privacy when dealing with patient data is important to consider. But you explain how privacy isn’t a concern when the correct steps are taken.” This is an improvement from the first time around, I made more helpful comments and asked questions and analyzed what he wrote. I have made a lot of improvement since the start of the semester and there is still even more room for improvement. Some areas for growth are to move away from being too worried to make constructive comments on the global scale. Although they may not use my suggestions it does help them to see an outsiders perspective.