The first peer review was well structured and described. It explained in depth what they’ve been studying, and how it’s led up to them creating their FMP. As well as explaining why they’re passionate about this topic, how it can impact others and the different research methods that will help create the project.


The second peer review states clearly what the FMP is, and clarifies what they mean, as their FMP is quite a broad subject. They also mention videos they’ve watched that have given them inspiration for their project.

What sets them apart?

I personally found AH’s project proposal more interesting. More detail was used, and better words we’re used in explaining the passion for the FMP. Where as JC’s project proposal was very basic. They didn’t explain why they we’re so passionate about the FMP, what had led them to deciding it as their final project. Also, when mentioning known names, they should have mentioned less and stated why they we’re so connected to feminism, to give a better understanding to why they feel celebrities are so important to feminism. Another thing that didn’t work well was that his project didn’t seem to link. AH’s proposal also gave a lot more detail into what medium they we’re using in their project and how it will help provide a more fascinating purpose to their project.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s