When providing feedback and comments to my fellow peers for their pitch I put myself in the mindset of providing them the same sort of constructive criticism I’d wish to receive in my own work.
Using this mentality I provided a link I found that I believed would assist every blog post I reviewed as well as a piece of feedback regarding what I believe they were doing right as well as what I believed they could have done better to benefit their own Digital Artefact.
Seeing the way that someone else interprets your pitch and your vision for your final product of your task is critical in a process like this as it allows an extra pair of eyes to spot anything that may require improvement or touching up, often times these are things we don’t even notice.
I solely used YouTube videos as a form of research for them to look at because I feel as if they’re the easiest form of content to digest. Below are screenshots of the feedback I provided to three peer blog posts.
The peers blogs I reviewed I was incredibly intrigued by and definitely learnt some things from their work that I could implement into my own as well as having my own experience I could shed on them. This included my review on Phoebe’s pitch, we both are doing very similar digital artefacts surrounding music so I suggested to her implementing a Spotify playlist into hers as I am doing the same and I believed it would fit her artefact perfectly. I was also able to provide feedback in regards to furthering the field site she examines by including a Facebook group based on one of the Indie Rock bands she specified in her pitch.
In conclusion, peer review and reflection is of high importance in this task as it links back to autoethnography and being able to relate personal experience and relate your own events researching and exploring field sites. This was the largest takeaway and lesson I learnt from reviewing the work of my peers and is definitely going to be of use throughout the remainder of my project.