Following the completion of Assignment 1.3, I came up with some thoughts about the entire process – Writing, editing, and revising my article.

Writing

At first, when I began writing I believed that the task would be fairly straightforward – I have previously had to give presentations on the subject to my co-worker. However, I then realized that the definitions would not be targeted to fellow experts of the subject – instead, the audience would be towards an educated audience, but one unfamiliar with the subject matter. It made writing a bit more interesting, as I had to often pause and change my wording to help better explain information, as well as add details I often took for granted to be common knowledge in my field.

Peer Review

Peer revision was fairly interesting. I peer reviewed one of my fellow Technical Writing Team member’s assignment: Alanna Mckeigue’s three definitions for the term ‘Periodontium’. It was a unique opportunity to both learn about subject matter I had previously not known about, as well as give critique from a more uninformed position. Alanna had very detailed definitions for her term, and I quickly grasped the subject matter. Additionally, I took away some tips from her writing that I would myself use in my revision later on.

Revision

Revision was fairly straightforward – Alanna’s review was succinct and clear, and gave me information on where to improve. Additionally, I changed some aspects that I saw could use improvement from when I was reviewing Alanna’s article. Alanna’s perspective helped me change some aspects that I otherwise would not have seen – the process was extremely useful for improving my writing.

The following links are for the articles written in the process:

Alanna’s peer review: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-98a-2021sa/2021/06/04/alannas-peer-review-of-brendan-chans-definition-of-lateral-flow-assays/

Revised definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-98a-2021sa/2021/06/09/brendan-chan-revised-definition-of-lateral-flow-assay/