Peer Review 2

 This is a re-upload of the document originally submitted before the Friday deadline; not sure where the first went.

I reviewed Cynthia's Essay regarding the systematic destabilization of the middle-east.

I also reviewed PJ's QRG about the banning of gun sales via Facebook/Instagram.

1. What did you learn about your own project (or the project in general) by comparing drafts of the same project in different genres?

The overwhelming majority of people chose QRG's, so finding Cynthia's essay was damn near impossible. But once I was able to find it, it told me a lot about how both she and I ignored the principle foundations of a solid essay: having a solid title, clever hook, and a structured, meaningful thesis.

3 Things I need to Address:

 1. I don't have a title

2. No hyperlinks!

3. Lots of rhetoric, and no substance regarding actual quotes.

3 Things that worked well:

 1. My paper felt assertive, and could definitely sway the reader to think the way I do after reading.

 2.My topic is easily reachable, because the vast majority of readers either have a Facebook, or are generally interested in learning more about robots taking over the earth.
 

3. My event is narrow enough to write about objectively pertaining to certain events said around it, but also broad enough to speculate and think about implications for future relations between AI and humans.