Feedback I found to be helpful were those of helping pinpoint areas as a writer I may be weaker on. It’s easy to get caught up in the writer’s lens when it comes to producing a paper and being able to have not only one but a class of readers that have so much feedback helps you narrow in on ways to improve your writing. From the feedback I have received my next focuses are going to be asking follow up questions and finding parts of the story to add that element of excitement. As well as reading through and making sure to, I can really highlight my focus to the readers.
My feature story draft was one of the selections for our class workshop today, Friday, 2/23, and I definitely got some very helpful and constructive feedback from my peers. It was also nice to reflect on how the comments from the class made me feel that the story I have chosen to dig into is relevant to students on campus. After this workshop, I plan to incorporate my interview with Freshman Art Education major Kaylie Norton into the piece to provide that important understanding that new students coming into UNE under the current schedule change don’t know any better. There is nothing to raise concerns over to them as it is the norm. I will also make a few minor mechanical edits surrounding pronouns, some quote formatting, and re-work where my nut graph is. The only major piece I want to add is to interview Prof. Cripps to provide some context and authority to the mood/situation at the student forum back in 2022. As I am thinking about the central focus of the piece and how to provide the impact I am looking for, I also received a great suggestion from Prof. Miller based on the class’ feelings toward the silence mentioned is to add to the craft of the piece by incorporating that somewhere in either my sub-head or lede.
What I found helpful was the feedback more about the context of where my Feature takes place like putting UNE in the first paragraph. Also what I put into my essay that was repetitive because I didn’t know that I had repeated myself which lead to big paragraphs. As well as what someone could find on the website doing there own research and what my feature could give them perspectives that didn’t include the websites info. My draft had hit around 800 words well over 750. So pin pointing what was repetitive was probably the most helpful feedback, so I could rework it to include my other interview with an RA into the mix. Another very helpful part of the peer review was about what my angle was about the lack of student engagement and how COVID changed the engagement in the RSLA.
As my feature was workshopped today, I found plenty of useful information for my editing and revision process as I move forward with this draft. I went into this workshop knowing I needed to include more perspectives about the GUST programs from students and faculty, but I had no idea how to cut down on what I already had. As it stands, before I begin editing, I am at 749 words. Once asked for advice on this matter, I gained a few insightful ideas that will aid in my process of cutting down, while also continuing to build the significance. Being able to siphon out the details that may be unnecessary is something I will have to work on, in addition to really focusing on the angle. My next steps are to reach out to a faculty member, likely Michael Cripps and Dean Millen, for an interview or even just a statement, in addition to a potential student contact who is now an upperclassman. I will begin looking for places where information is too wordy or not focused on the angle and intended impact. Overall, this workshopping experience is valuable for any journalist, and I look forward to seeing what I can refine.
Overall, I was given a lot of very solid feedback which will benefit me as I start to workshop my piece. The most useful advice that I received was about the content of my article. I was told that a sociological study would fit into my article very well, and to look for something examining the connection between happiness and residency in a walkable city. I was also advised to focus the lede more, and give background information in a nut graf, which should go after the lede. Another helpful piece of advice that I received was to interview alumni of UNE to see if they feel the longingness for college that I describe in my article. This would add a whole new dimension in my article, and while I have not been successful yet, I hope to incorporate this kind of an interview into my revised article.
What was helpful for me today was to realize my quotes are not structured well and that it will lose reader engagement. Some other tips I got that were helpful were to be able to interview more people such as another player and or the athletic trainer. Next steps for my revision process will be working towards getting my quotes more structured and adding in some more information about the article and also adding in an interview or two more. Also what I would like to do is make the story based more on the stadium so with that I will take the head coach’s name out of it unless he was interviewed for the story. I am excited to see how the outcome of my article turns out and I was given great feedback to make it a good strong article.
Some of the feedback I found important were things like the advice to evaluate my structure and overall flow because there were times where my writing seemed wordy and long. So, I think that helped from the aspect of figuring out where I could shorten and condense some things down and make the flow of my paper easier for the reader to digest. Another thing I liked was from Nick when he mentioned flipping my headline and sub headline. I think it’s something that would definitely make my writing better as a whole and something I’m looking at and trying to find ways to make the paper better. Finally, I think the advice to get a freshman’s perspective was important because it was something I was debating, and I wasn’t sure on whether or not I should because the paper is about them and so obviously there would be bias in the paper if they were added.
In my peer review, I felt as though there were any helpful comments. I liked the comments made about my headline and sub headline, as I knew they were somewhat weak, but wasn’t sure what I could do to fix them. I also thought that the comments related to my articles focus and clarity were warranted. I can be somewhat unfocused both in writing and thought, especially in the topics I’m most interested in, which can be hard for me to recognize by myself. To revise my story, I’m going to re-read it and try to rewrite the parts where I might be going too in depth on topics that aren’t precisely relevant to my story, basically trying to retain a single focus throughout. I will also be going through and trying to punch up some of the language, as it was pointed out that my word choice can be rather bland and uninteresting. Most importantly, I will go through and try to make my feature a bit more story driven; dedicating more time to a single topic and allocating more words to making it flow like a story, instead of getting distracted by talking about topics that aren’t as relevant.
The feedback that was given to me during my workshop I felt was helpful. Some comments I felt helpful stared with the lead. As working knowing my lead felt too long it was great to listen how to shorten it as well as potentially taking some if the ideas into a sub-headline. The idea of getting a bigger club’s thoughts was good to know I need that in my paper and not just leave it as an idea. I also liked to idea of adding the reason or the thought process of how my featured idea came up I believe that can add some thoughts onto the piece. As I finish my paper I need to get the second interview with the bigger club as well as limit my wording and editing the grammar of the paper.
The things that I took away from my in class workshop were fixing gramatical mistakes, some misplacment of sentences, and I got some great feedback in regards to my storytelling. It was a quicker discussion than the others but the feedback that I got was great. I think that I am putting the right message and everyone is being represented properly. I enjoyed hearing all of the thoughts of people who read something that I wrote and liked it. The things that are goig in my revisions are the fixing of the gramatical errors, using the new techniques for condensing paragraphs, and fill in the blanks on come things like “All CCC.” I will also guide my story to fit more of the culture aspect of this feature.
Journal #8: Reflection on my piece getting workshopped
Overall I think this experience was really helpful and it was nice to hear the perspective of my classmates on my piece. Multiple people said that they could tell that this is something that I care a lot about and that they could tell that I have done a lot of research for it which meant a lot to me. Some of the main comments that stood out to me the most were… First off Tony said “this is a large amount of money, this isn’t pocket change we are talking about” he was curious and wanted to know what steps were taken and how the university was able to get such a large grant. To go off of that Mr. Miller asked when the grant was given and when did the living shoreline project begin. This was a really good comment and made me realize I need to include more of the (when and how) throughout the piece. Another comment that I got I forget who said it was that it would benefit my piece to have some student perspective throughout the piece especially from the students who are or have been in the Gulf of Maine field studies class which I definitely agree with. (going to try to network and see what I can do). Another useful critique I got from Mr. Miller was to remember my audience specifically when I said soft sedimentary rock. The class was like what is that. So I need to use less scientific words in certain areas so it’s more reader friendly. I got the feedback that my headline could be shorter but I’m not really sure how I should do that a recommendation Mr. Miller gave was to change is giving to gives but beyond that I will have a hard time shortening it. One of the main critiques that I got that was brought forward from several individuals was that they didn’t like the list of why coastal erosion is a problem on the Biddeford campus, they thought that that information could be broken up and explained better instead of just listing it. Another small thing was I forgot to add a by line in the beginning so I will add that In the final.
One suggestion I found really helpful was taking out the word “most” from my subhead, as it was confusing to readers. I think this allowed me to spruce up my subhead and make it even better. Additionally, I think that all of the suggestions regarding formatting were very useful as well, as I think my feature will be easier to follow and understand with these revisions. I may try to find one more interview, possibly with either another MSC faculty member or a relevant student, but those are pending. I really appreciated all of the different perspectives that everyone in class shared, as my piece has a lot of moving pieces and I was wondering how I could make it more digestible, but I think that the feedback I got will really be helpful moving forward in my editing process.
I think the next step for revision is contacting Tony for his contact who works with elevators and repairs, which would be super helpful. I also have to work on making my article more neutral because it was super polarized to the idea that the first year housing is really quite bad. Overall the comments were quite helpful today though, and gave me a lot to work with. I already have a person who broke their ankle that I want to interview soon in order to see if they got any support from the campus. I should also look into the actual costs for installation for elevators as well as where they might go in old buildings. I’ve already looked into it a little bit, and from what I understand they can be added pretty easily, potentially in an area of the building that already has a staircase. Each of the quad dorms already have an extra staircase fitted into them, but I’m not sure if they need two for fire escape purposes. If not, then they’d make for a fantastic spot for an elevator for each quad building. Something good about them is that they all have the exact same layout (sans featherman) so if one can get an elevator installed, then they all can (theoretically). I should also look into emailing someone from the accessibility department to see if they have any ways that they can help students out, or if they have existing ways to help students out, if they have broken legs or accessibility issues.
My article was revised on Tuseday the 5th and received a lot of great feedback and improvements. I think increasing the storytelling and spice aspect will help add character and keep it interesting. I can also improve lead to highlight the slow mailroom and the more relevant issue. Professor Jesse suggested questioning the delay in packages and diving deeper into the background of the problem. Essentially, I need to angle my article to a specific rather than general information. Providing more context like statistics, number of employment, and number of packages can help give clarification and get to the bottom of the real issues in the mailroom. I can also expand on quotes and interview such as head of mailroom’s statements on truck shipments. There’s a lot of improvements to make but review from my peers and gaining their perspective on my article really helped.
my thoughts on my in-class workshop was that the overall feel of my feature was not bad it just needed some refinement. for starters quotation marks around my quotes and making them known. another thing is to have more quotes the most influential was the idea to have someone who came from a different school which is what I did. overall i enjoyed the feedback i got i feel like it made my feature so much better.
15 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 8”
Feedback I found to be helpful were those of helping pinpoint areas as a writer I may be weaker on. It’s easy to get caught up in the writer’s lens when it comes to producing a paper and being able to have not only one but a class of readers that have so much feedback helps you narrow in on ways to improve your writing. From the feedback I have received my next focuses are going to be asking follow up questions and finding parts of the story to add that element of excitement. As well as reading through and making sure to, I can really highlight my focus to the readers.
My feature story draft was one of the selections for our class workshop today, Friday, 2/23, and I definitely got some very helpful and constructive feedback from my peers. It was also nice to reflect on how the comments from the class made me feel that the story I have chosen to dig into is relevant to students on campus. After this workshop, I plan to incorporate my interview with Freshman Art Education major Kaylie Norton into the piece to provide that important understanding that new students coming into UNE under the current schedule change don’t know any better. There is nothing to raise concerns over to them as it is the norm. I will also make a few minor mechanical edits surrounding pronouns, some quote formatting, and re-work where my nut graph is. The only major piece I want to add is to interview Prof. Cripps to provide some context and authority to the mood/situation at the student forum back in 2022. As I am thinking about the central focus of the piece and how to provide the impact I am looking for, I also received a great suggestion from Prof. Miller based on the class’ feelings toward the silence mentioned is to add to the craft of the piece by incorporating that somewhere in either my sub-head or lede.
What I found helpful was the feedback more about the context of where my Feature takes place like putting UNE in the first paragraph. Also what I put into my essay that was repetitive because I didn’t know that I had repeated myself which lead to big paragraphs. As well as what someone could find on the website doing there own research and what my feature could give them perspectives that didn’t include the websites info. My draft had hit around 800 words well over 750. So pin pointing what was repetitive was probably the most helpful feedback, so I could rework it to include my other interview with an RA into the mix. Another very helpful part of the peer review was about what my angle was about the lack of student engagement and how COVID changed the engagement in the RSLA.
As my feature was workshopped today, I found plenty of useful information for my editing and revision process as I move forward with this draft. I went into this workshop knowing I needed to include more perspectives about the GUST programs from students and faculty, but I had no idea how to cut down on what I already had. As it stands, before I begin editing, I am at 749 words. Once asked for advice on this matter, I gained a few insightful ideas that will aid in my process of cutting down, while also continuing to build the significance. Being able to siphon out the details that may be unnecessary is something I will have to work on, in addition to really focusing on the angle. My next steps are to reach out to a faculty member, likely Michael Cripps and Dean Millen, for an interview or even just a statement, in addition to a potential student contact who is now an upperclassman. I will begin looking for places where information is too wordy or not focused on the angle and intended impact. Overall, this workshopping experience is valuable for any journalist, and I look forward to seeing what I can refine.
Overall, I was given a lot of very solid feedback which will benefit me as I start to workshop my piece. The most useful advice that I received was about the content of my article. I was told that a sociological study would fit into my article very well, and to look for something examining the connection between happiness and residency in a walkable city. I was also advised to focus the lede more, and give background information in a nut graf, which should go after the lede. Another helpful piece of advice that I received was to interview alumni of UNE to see if they feel the longingness for college that I describe in my article. This would add a whole new dimension in my article, and while I have not been successful yet, I hope to incorporate this kind of an interview into my revised article.
What was helpful for me today was to realize my quotes are not structured well and that it will lose reader engagement. Some other tips I got that were helpful were to be able to interview more people such as another player and or the athletic trainer. Next steps for my revision process will be working towards getting my quotes more structured and adding in some more information about the article and also adding in an interview or two more. Also what I would like to do is make the story based more on the stadium so with that I will take the head coach’s name out of it unless he was interviewed for the story. I am excited to see how the outcome of my article turns out and I was given great feedback to make it a good strong article.
Some of the feedback I found important were things like the advice to evaluate my structure and overall flow because there were times where my writing seemed wordy and long. So, I think that helped from the aspect of figuring out where I could shorten and condense some things down and make the flow of my paper easier for the reader to digest. Another thing I liked was from Nick when he mentioned flipping my headline and sub headline. I think it’s something that would definitely make my writing better as a whole and something I’m looking at and trying to find ways to make the paper better. Finally, I think the advice to get a freshman’s perspective was important because it was something I was debating, and I wasn’t sure on whether or not I should because the paper is about them and so obviously there would be bias in the paper if they were added.
In my peer review, I felt as though there were any helpful comments. I liked the comments made about my headline and sub headline, as I knew they were somewhat weak, but wasn’t sure what I could do to fix them. I also thought that the comments related to my articles focus and clarity were warranted. I can be somewhat unfocused both in writing and thought, especially in the topics I’m most interested in, which can be hard for me to recognize by myself. To revise my story, I’m going to re-read it and try to rewrite the parts where I might be going too in depth on topics that aren’t precisely relevant to my story, basically trying to retain a single focus throughout. I will also be going through and trying to punch up some of the language, as it was pointed out that my word choice can be rather bland and uninteresting. Most importantly, I will go through and try to make my feature a bit more story driven; dedicating more time to a single topic and allocating more words to making it flow like a story, instead of getting distracted by talking about topics that aren’t as relevant.
The feedback that was given to me during my workshop I felt was helpful. Some comments I felt helpful stared with the lead. As working knowing my lead felt too long it was great to listen how to shorten it as well as potentially taking some if the ideas into a sub-headline. The idea of getting a bigger club’s thoughts was good to know I need that in my paper and not just leave it as an idea. I also liked to idea of adding the reason or the thought process of how my featured idea came up I believe that can add some thoughts onto the piece. As I finish my paper I need to get the second interview with the bigger club as well as limit my wording and editing the grammar of the paper.
The things that I took away from my in class workshop were fixing gramatical mistakes, some misplacment of sentences, and I got some great feedback in regards to my storytelling. It was a quicker discussion than the others but the feedback that I got was great. I think that I am putting the right message and everyone is being represented properly. I enjoyed hearing all of the thoughts of people who read something that I wrote and liked it. The things that are goig in my revisions are the fixing of the gramatical errors, using the new techniques for condensing paragraphs, and fill in the blanks on come things like “All CCC.” I will also guide my story to fit more of the culture aspect of this feature.
Journal #8: Reflection on my piece getting workshopped
Overall I think this experience was really helpful and it was nice to hear the perspective of my classmates on my piece. Multiple people said that they could tell that this is something that I care a lot about and that they could tell that I have done a lot of research for it which meant a lot to me. Some of the main comments that stood out to me the most were… First off Tony said “this is a large amount of money, this isn’t pocket change we are talking about” he was curious and wanted to know what steps were taken and how the university was able to get such a large grant. To go off of that Mr. Miller asked when the grant was given and when did the living shoreline project begin. This was a really good comment and made me realize I need to include more of the (when and how) throughout the piece. Another comment that I got I forget who said it was that it would benefit my piece to have some student perspective throughout the piece especially from the students who are or have been in the Gulf of Maine field studies class which I definitely agree with. (going to try to network and see what I can do). Another useful critique I got from Mr. Miller was to remember my audience specifically when I said soft sedimentary rock. The class was like what is that. So I need to use less scientific words in certain areas so it’s more reader friendly. I got the feedback that my headline could be shorter but I’m not really sure how I should do that a recommendation Mr. Miller gave was to change is giving to gives but beyond that I will have a hard time shortening it. One of the main critiques that I got that was brought forward from several individuals was that they didn’t like the list of why coastal erosion is a problem on the Biddeford campus, they thought that that information could be broken up and explained better instead of just listing it. Another small thing was I forgot to add a by line in the beginning so I will add that In the final.
One suggestion I found really helpful was taking out the word “most” from my subhead, as it was confusing to readers. I think this allowed me to spruce up my subhead and make it even better. Additionally, I think that all of the suggestions regarding formatting were very useful as well, as I think my feature will be easier to follow and understand with these revisions. I may try to find one more interview, possibly with either another MSC faculty member or a relevant student, but those are pending. I really appreciated all of the different perspectives that everyone in class shared, as my piece has a lot of moving pieces and I was wondering how I could make it more digestible, but I think that the feedback I got will really be helpful moving forward in my editing process.
I think the next step for revision is contacting Tony for his contact who works with elevators and repairs, which would be super helpful. I also have to work on making my article more neutral because it was super polarized to the idea that the first year housing is really quite bad. Overall the comments were quite helpful today though, and gave me a lot to work with. I already have a person who broke their ankle that I want to interview soon in order to see if they got any support from the campus. I should also look into the actual costs for installation for elevators as well as where they might go in old buildings. I’ve already looked into it a little bit, and from what I understand they can be added pretty easily, potentially in an area of the building that already has a staircase. Each of the quad dorms already have an extra staircase fitted into them, but I’m not sure if they need two for fire escape purposes. If not, then they’d make for a fantastic spot for an elevator for each quad building. Something good about them is that they all have the exact same layout (sans featherman) so if one can get an elevator installed, then they all can (theoretically). I should also look into emailing someone from the accessibility department to see if they have any ways that they can help students out, or if they have existing ways to help students out, if they have broken legs or accessibility issues.
My article was revised on Tuseday the 5th and received a lot of great feedback and improvements. I think increasing the storytelling and spice aspect will help add character and keep it interesting. I can also improve lead to highlight the slow mailroom and the more relevant issue. Professor Jesse suggested questioning the delay in packages and diving deeper into the background of the problem. Essentially, I need to angle my article to a specific rather than general information. Providing more context like statistics, number of employment, and number of packages can help give clarification and get to the bottom of the real issues in the mailroom. I can also expand on quotes and interview such as head of mailroom’s statements on truck shipments. There’s a lot of improvements to make but review from my peers and gaining their perspective on my article really helped.
my thoughts on my in-class workshop was that the overall feel of my feature was not bad it just needed some refinement. for starters quotation marks around my quotes and making them known. another thing is to have more quotes the most influential was the idea to have someone who came from a different school which is what I did. overall i enjoyed the feedback i got i feel like it made my feature so much better.