For my first Food Blog draft, I talked about Fugu and the controversy the dish has caused in Japan over whether farm-raised Fugu without poison should be allowed or not.
My peer reviewer suggested that I add more descriptions that match the narrative I tell through the blog post. In addition, he suggested that I add more about the effects of Fugu-poisoning and more specific details about preparing Fugu.
Overall, my post needs more descriptions and information from my sources to further flesh it out.
For my second Food Blog draft, I talked about Anisakiasis, an infection that can result from eating raw fish.
My peer reviewer said that the information I incorporated in my post is very interesting and overall, quite alluring. However, he pointed out that the piece lacks a central argument. The piece is more informative than argumentative. My peer reviewer also pointed out that the ordering in my blog could be better: I could talk about how I love eating raw food first, then gradually transition to the narrative, and then the argument. I agree.
Overall, this piece has the information, but needs a cohesive argument to bring the pieces together.
No comments:
Post a Comment