Writing My Definitions:

When I started the definition assignment, I decided to define the term debasement because I find the topic in classical numismatics to be fascinating. Although writing my parenthetical and sentence definitions was straightforward, writing my expanded definition of my term proved to be more difficult and time consuming due to the methods of expansion I used. Considering that a technical writer may need to create a new graphic if one for the topic being written about does not exist, I thought it would be prudent to make my own graphic. This turned out to be time consuming and labour intensive. I also discovered that I had to do more research than I originally thought I needed to because the document needed a works cited section.

Peer Review:

As fascinating the term I decided to define was, I found my definition to be very short compared to the expanded definition I reviewed. I think this is mostly due to the term that I decided to define being fairly simple to define. There may be a disconnect between me and the audience reading my definition, resulting in relevant information not being included due to my background. Producing an insightful peer review was straightforward. There were things I did not catch during my first read through Nicole’s document. I have discovered that, because my peer review partner and I are from different backgrounds, the mistakes we made and the style of writing we use in our writing are completely different.

Revisions:

I have learned that small oversights have affected the readability of the document. When I wrote my original definitions, I chose to use relatively simple language while writing in a formal tone as to not have the document appear too stuffy. I was also cautious to not use numismatic terminology that would confuse the reader without giving a parenthetical definition (as I did with the term denarius). Though I tried to use simple but descriptive language, there were still some financial terms in the document that I did not realize could be considered jargon. I have fixed this problem and the minor grammatical errors that were in the original document. I neglected to cite my graphic because I thought I did not need to cite my own creation (though I neglected to tell this to the person doing my peer review). Although the graphic was regular sized when I wrote the document on word, the image shrank when I inserted it into the word press page, making it hard to see on the original post. I have since made a revision to the graphic in the hyperlinked document.

Revised Definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30198a2022s12/2022/06/13/davids-revised-definition/

Nicole’s Peer Review of My Definition: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30198a2022s12/2022/06/10/nicoles-peer-review-of-davids-definition/