Posted: September 26th, 2023
Thanks for posting your peer review in the discussion thread and letting me review it! I hope the feedback I provide is useful and can be used in your final draft. Comment by Glenn Lester: The peer reviewer formats their review as a letter. Comment by Glenn Lester: The reviewer starts by thanking the writer. This shows goodwill and indicates that the reviewer sees their job as constructive.
Your first paragraph is good. You introduce and explain what exactly “Stan Twitter” is and how one would be able to join said community. I also found your transition into the next paragraph to work pretty well, but maybe you could put the last sentence of the first paragraph as the first sentence of the second paragraph? I personally think it’d flow better, but that’s a matter of opinion. Also, after reading the first paragraph of your report, your reader should know what exactly you’re going to be talking about. You talk a lot about what “Stan Twitter” is, but don’t really go in depth about what you plan on discussing. Are you just detailing what “Stan Twitter” is along with a couple of their communication methods? Or are you planning on connecting “Stan Twitter” with other Twitter communities? Maybe you can explicitly say what you plan on talking about. Reduces confusion and makes it more readable. Comment by Glenn Lester: The reviewer not only praises a success, but is specific about WHY the strategy was successful. Comment by Glenn Lester: The peer reviewer asks questions to help spur the writer to think about their purpose and goals for the draft. Comment by Glenn Lester: “Maybe” and “personally” indicates that the peer reviewer is looking for possibilities.
In your second paragraph, you explain what Carrds are, and you do it pretty well. You don’t really cover how they’re important to the community as a whole, though. I know they’re used to give people an idea about who you are and what you “stan”, but why is it important to know? Explaining its importance to the reader by giving examples of how people may use them would, in my opinion, be beneficial. Comment by Glenn Lester: The peer reviewer is specific about location in the draft.
I now see that your third paragraph answers all of my concerns about your second paragraph. Maybe instead of having them being two separate paragraphs, you fuse them together somehow? I don’t mean remove the spaces in between the paragraphs and call it a day, I mean sprinkle the information of the third paragraph through the second so you’re both giving examples and explaining. Comment by Glenn Lester: The peer reviewer shows that they are on the writer’s side, and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Your fourth and final paragraphs seem out of place and (potentially) unfinished. The fourth paragraph discusses support for the celebrity, but it’s only a few sentences long and doesn’t clearly solidify its purpose in the paper. The final paragraph is, I’m assuming, your conclusion. You discuss Carrds quite a bit and also how they could be used in discourse communities. I’d recommend summing up the entire paper in the first one to two sentences, then discussing how Carrds can be used in other discourse communities, including specific examples where they could be used. Your ending sentence is also fairly generic, maybe make it relate back to your subject, like “Although Stan Twitter is rather new and difficult to understand, other discourse communities can use communication methods like Carrds to advance their goals,” but in your own words. Comment by Glenn Lester: Peer reviewer provides specific suggestions and explains why they would help.
Overall, your first three paragraphs flow pretty well. I think you need to solidify exactly what you’re writing about as well as providing more examples of “Stan Twitter” communication methods as it’s mainly focused on Carrds.
A few other suggestions and reminders you should keep in mind. You used sources that described your discourse community, but none of the readings we used in class were used in your paper. Should be a simple fix, like listing what quality of discourse community you’d like to focus on then explaining how something relates back to the concept of discourse community. You have visual aids, which is great, but they may be a bit small for a reader. I can’t really read the BYF and DFI sections of either of the images even though I’m using a rather large monitor. I’d recommend having a title that better encompasses what your paper is about, like “The Discourse Community of Stan Twitter” or something of that nature. I also recognize many instances where you reference a celebrity but don’t really describe who they are. For instance, you say BTS quite a bit. Maybe you could clarify that by saying it’s a Korean Pop (K-Pop) group, allowing the reader to get a better idea of what you’re saying. I’d also recommend adopting the IMRaD format as this assignment is more a report than an essay. Comment by Glenn Lester: The peer reviewer provides specific suggestions and feedback for how the writer can meet the assignment criteria. Comment by Glenn Lester: The reviewer’s critical feedback is specific and precise and focused on helping the writer revise, not finding fault.
You are doing a great job and you are definitely on the right track! Feel free to reach out to me through Canvas if you have any further questions. Comment by Glenn Lester: The reviewer offers to continue to assist the writer.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.