The first comment that I found helpful was made by Sarah. She talked about Molly’s piece, and said that it could use some oomph, as it is about an exciting topic. This comment really hit for me, as if something doesn’t have any substance to it, it won’t interest any readers. The way Sarah said it was perfect and helped me think about ways that I might spice up my article and make it more engaging.
A second comment that stood out to me was made by Finn, and it was when he told Molly that all of the pieces are there for her piece, they just needed to be rearranged. I feel that way about my own article, and I have been having trouble finding a direction to take it in, so this comment made me feel better. I feel less alone in my situation, and I have more hope in my article, and my ability to rearrange it.
Today’s editorial workshop was very lively, and I felt like everyone had a few helpful comments to make. I feel like the central theme of the class was how to make sure we find our angle and how so many other pieces of the editing process will fall into place through that. One comment from our discussion that I found really constructive was from Tony when he framed his suggestion with the opportunity for Evan to gain some more credibility with the addition of an interview with the Atheltic Trainer. Ideas like this one, with a few solid steps the writer can do, make the drafting process seem doable. Another comment or two that stood out to me was from Pheobe when she gave a great piece of personal experience and advice to Sarah Bo. in gaining the perspective of a student who is not in the GUST program but who has changed their major and might have some feelings on if they could have benefited from it. Phoebe also jumped in to answer Grace’s question regarding her word count and how to shorten her piece by making the vital connection that if she spends some time honing in on her angle, what is most important will become apparent, and some cuts can be made with other information not as relevant.
I really appreciate Finn, Sarah, and Phoebe’s suggestions in cutting down on the number of words. Currently, I am exactly 2 words shy of being over the 600 word limit, which isn’t great, and I’d love to be able to cut down the amount of words as soon as I can. I like the attention brought to narrowing the main focus or idea of your article down to a specific topic and pruning the unneeded or unnecessary words away once you’ve done so. I have a habit of saying a little too much with regards to the amount of context that a reader needs, and also going on tangents (sometimes mid sentence) which isn’t a great thing to do if you’re trying to condense words. I also appreciate the fact that some students were willing to argue (perhaps argue is too strong a word, but regardless) against other’s opinions on an article? It makes me feel better when people feel like they not only have a say in the editing process, but also aren’t afraid to say when they disagree with another student’s suggestion. I don’t think anyone should be afraid to disagree with someone else, and the way that they disagreed was very eloquent and well put together, rather than confrontational and argumentative. Another thing I appreciated was the repetition of advice from previous classes, such as reading your article aloud, or rereading it over again in your head after writing in order to pick apart things that don’t make sense.
Today’s class reflected a few interesting points that were impactful. When discussing quotes and interviews, it was beneficial to hear about breaking them down to be more “digestible” for the reader to rake in and understand. As writers, we may want to incorporate as much as we can for credibility, so integrating multiple perspectives and getting directly to the people most involved with our topics is vital for us as journalists. On the other hand, we also need to know when to cut out unnecessary particulars or overly explanatory details where we may lose the reader.
Another constructive comment came from Nick during Zak’s discussion about including that reliability when examining Maine colleges. In his piece, he compares the parking situation to Massachusetts colleges, but if it is kept locally in Maine, it may be easier for readers to compare apples to apples. I liked this particular comment as it helps with the scope of our writing and how one must stay on topic as well as be aware of their audience. These comments are beneficial for the writers because once they are so involved in a piece, it becomes challenging to identify these particular flaws.
In terms of today’s peer editing session there were a lot of good suggestions and feedback shared to help improve the writing of the four writers who shared their work. The biggest thing that stuck out to me from today’s session was that after receiving feedback from the class the writer was able to ask a question, one question being on the topic of having a high word count and suggestions on how to lower that number for the ability to add in some more details. To which multiple students shared their recommendations and their methods when faced with the same challenge. Another comment that stood out to me was once again from a collective but the idea of suggesting another detail that they thought the writer should expand upon. Overall I think that these peer editing sessions are huge opportunities for writers to receive well thought feedback and suggestions to improve their writing.
Journal #10
I feel like Sarah Bourdeau’s comment to Grace about interviewing students who come from or have lived in a more city-like area was helpful input to helping Grace’s piece. I think this is an impactful way of looking at it from a different angle and could help the piece. Because the features need interviews to make it credible and it’s what gives the features notability.
During our second workshop session, I noticed a couple of pieces of advice that I thought were very thoughtful and insightful. I thought that, overall, the advice that pertains to who the journalist should try to interview was interesting for many reasons. One of these reasons was because of how different everyone’s interviews are oriented, but also because I think our group is very good at gaging what perspectives would benefit any given article, and how to get those perspectives. Additionally, I think that the general advice given about considering the audience’s perspective is very insightful. This kind of advice uses multiple perspectives to look at a piece and decide whether certain information is relevant or not, and I think it really helps to refine the article drafts.
Tuesday, 2/26/24, we reviewed another 4 of our peer’s Feature stories. During this editorial review, Sarah made a comment on Zak’s feature about the parking situation at UNE that I thought was particularly impactful. She mentioned that his article would be improved by adding a security, faculty, or staff member perspective, as his article seems to frame the issue of parking as only a student issue, or only from a student perspective. I thought this was important as it’s expanding the scope of the article a bit and trying to reposition to get a larger overall view of the problem and it’s effects on campus. Another impactful comment came from Sarah’s editorial review, about her feature on the GUST program at UNE. His comment, in response to her question of how her piece could be revised for length, was to try to communicate the most relevant and best information for the subject in as short of a time as possible. I thought this was important because it is basically the essence of journalistic writing; trying to get across your point concisely and precisely. It is additionally a common issue to have among our class, as the majority of us are used to writing essays and scholarly papers, which often are afforded larger word counts and are less focused on being concise.
I thought that Sarah and Nick both provided very constructive comments to the individuals who were being reviewed. Sarah expressed to a couple of people her recommendations about getting their word counts down, so that they could take peoples’ comments into consideration without going too far over the word count. Nick also helped a few people develop their stories by giving suggestions like comparing UNE to other colleges in Maine rather than to ones out of state, as well as different methods of keeping readers engaged by providing certain information that they were lacking.
After each review session, I feel more confident giving advice, notices changes needed to be made in my article and noticing others critiques. Some things that stood out to me from the last class was the importance of statistics and numbers, yes having clear information is reassuring and trustworthy but also minding the amount of information in an article and thinking strategically about how the words are being places and organised on the paper. Nick and Professor Jesse talked about comparing apples to apples, for these articles finding outside sources to compare UNE to may show throurness and explain weather it’s a topic specific to UNE or what we could do to improve it based on other schools. Finn mentioned that comparison can bring a new element to our projects and that it’s important to look at why this is one way verusues this, the other way. As Jesse said, capturing information accurately is the first step in setting up a great piece. Having the best/important and reliable information helps shape a concise and thorough article.
The first comment that was helpful was when a few different classmates, for example Westley and Finn, suggested to Evan to talk with the athletic director or the athletic doctor to see how to talk about the injuries. The suggestion went deeper with saying they would have the details about severity of injuries as well as what injuries were caused by contact or no contact. This can add more credibility to the paper as well as adding facts that can make the papers claim stronger. The second comment that was helpful talking about getting more stats om Zak’s story. Multiple students suggested adding more stats for example talking about schools in Maine as well as talking about different schools parking pass prices. These stats can add more credibility the paper as well as seeing other schools sides to the issues presented.
Tuesday’s class from an editorial standpoint was very impactful. First off, the first comment from Nick about Zak’s piece was about how he should examine how other Maine schools are with first year parking and how it could impact our school. This is helpful because it would be able to compare other schools in Maine and be able to keep the reader engaged. Another comment came from Finn where he said to make quotes more digestible and more reader friendly.I thought this was very well put because it would help reader engagement. This will be helpful because it will be able to make the article a lot stronger and easier to read.
From an editorial standpoint there were a couple of comments that stood out to me personally. I liked Tony’s comment a lot about how making the writing more generalized may hurt the paper more than harm. The reason I like it is because I feel like personally it is difficult to make everyone like you’re reading and so i think that sometimes a paper being specific is what makes it good they have to be topics that people want to read, and I think the important part of that is that not everyone is going to want to read everything. Another comment that I liked was Finn’s about finding the story. I thought this was important because it was something that at first when we got this assignment was something I struggled with and hearing that other people in the class may be struggling with the same thing was nice to know.
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 #10: EDITORIAL TEAM REACTIONS feedback group #2(focus on 2 comments)
In my opinion the two most helpful comments made during this feedback session were #1 remember to break up the large paragraph Mr. Miller suggested the Three sentence rule for shorter paragraphs. The three sentence rule will definitely be beneficial for me when trying to edit my final draft and I’m sure it will also benefit several other students in the class as well. #2 The second comment that I thought was useful was don’t put yourself or your opinions in the piece, get out of the way and have someone who knows nothing about the topic read the story. It’s easy to get too involved in your piece when it is something you are passionate about and that’s why it’s important to have an outside perspective look it over. Try not to add opinions or details someone wouldn’t understand if they don’t know anything about the topic already.
15 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 10”
The first comment that I found helpful was made by Sarah. She talked about Molly’s piece, and said that it could use some oomph, as it is about an exciting topic. This comment really hit for me, as if something doesn’t have any substance to it, it won’t interest any readers. The way Sarah said it was perfect and helped me think about ways that I might spice up my article and make it more engaging.
A second comment that stood out to me was made by Finn, and it was when he told Molly that all of the pieces are there for her piece, they just needed to be rearranged. I feel that way about my own article, and I have been having trouble finding a direction to take it in, so this comment made me feel better. I feel less alone in my situation, and I have more hope in my article, and my ability to rearrange it.
Today’s editorial workshop was very lively, and I felt like everyone had a few helpful comments to make. I feel like the central theme of the class was how to make sure we find our angle and how so many other pieces of the editing process will fall into place through that. One comment from our discussion that I found really constructive was from Tony when he framed his suggestion with the opportunity for Evan to gain some more credibility with the addition of an interview with the Atheltic Trainer. Ideas like this one, with a few solid steps the writer can do, make the drafting process seem doable. Another comment or two that stood out to me was from Pheobe when she gave a great piece of personal experience and advice to Sarah Bo. in gaining the perspective of a student who is not in the GUST program but who has changed their major and might have some feelings on if they could have benefited from it. Phoebe also jumped in to answer Grace’s question regarding her word count and how to shorten her piece by making the vital connection that if she spends some time honing in on her angle, what is most important will become apparent, and some cuts can be made with other information not as relevant.
I really appreciate Finn, Sarah, and Phoebe’s suggestions in cutting down on the number of words. Currently, I am exactly 2 words shy of being over the 600 word limit, which isn’t great, and I’d love to be able to cut down the amount of words as soon as I can. I like the attention brought to narrowing the main focus or idea of your article down to a specific topic and pruning the unneeded or unnecessary words away once you’ve done so. I have a habit of saying a little too much with regards to the amount of context that a reader needs, and also going on tangents (sometimes mid sentence) which isn’t a great thing to do if you’re trying to condense words. I also appreciate the fact that some students were willing to argue (perhaps argue is too strong a word, but regardless) against other’s opinions on an article? It makes me feel better when people feel like they not only have a say in the editing process, but also aren’t afraid to say when they disagree with another student’s suggestion. I don’t think anyone should be afraid to disagree with someone else, and the way that they disagreed was very eloquent and well put together, rather than confrontational and argumentative. Another thing I appreciated was the repetition of advice from previous classes, such as reading your article aloud, or rereading it over again in your head after writing in order to pick apart things that don’t make sense.
Today’s class reflected a few interesting points that were impactful. When discussing quotes and interviews, it was beneficial to hear about breaking them down to be more “digestible” for the reader to rake in and understand. As writers, we may want to incorporate as much as we can for credibility, so integrating multiple perspectives and getting directly to the people most involved with our topics is vital for us as journalists. On the other hand, we also need to know when to cut out unnecessary particulars or overly explanatory details where we may lose the reader.
Another constructive comment came from Nick during Zak’s discussion about including that reliability when examining Maine colleges. In his piece, he compares the parking situation to Massachusetts colleges, but if it is kept locally in Maine, it may be easier for readers to compare apples to apples. I liked this particular comment as it helps with the scope of our writing and how one must stay on topic as well as be aware of their audience. These comments are beneficial for the writers because once they are so involved in a piece, it becomes challenging to identify these particular flaws.
In terms of today’s peer editing session there were a lot of good suggestions and feedback shared to help improve the writing of the four writers who shared their work. The biggest thing that stuck out to me from today’s session was that after receiving feedback from the class the writer was able to ask a question, one question being on the topic of having a high word count and suggestions on how to lower that number for the ability to add in some more details. To which multiple students shared their recommendations and their methods when faced with the same challenge. Another comment that stood out to me was once again from a collective but the idea of suggesting another detail that they thought the writer should expand upon. Overall I think that these peer editing sessions are huge opportunities for writers to receive well thought feedback and suggestions to improve their writing.
Journal #10
I feel like Sarah Bourdeau’s comment to Grace about interviewing students who come from or have lived in a more city-like area was helpful input to helping Grace’s piece. I think this is an impactful way of looking at it from a different angle and could help the piece. Because the features need interviews to make it credible and it’s what gives the features notability.
During our second workshop session, I noticed a couple of pieces of advice that I thought were very thoughtful and insightful. I thought that, overall, the advice that pertains to who the journalist should try to interview was interesting for many reasons. One of these reasons was because of how different everyone’s interviews are oriented, but also because I think our group is very good at gaging what perspectives would benefit any given article, and how to get those perspectives. Additionally, I think that the general advice given about considering the audience’s perspective is very insightful. This kind of advice uses multiple perspectives to look at a piece and decide whether certain information is relevant or not, and I think it really helps to refine the article drafts.
Tuesday, 2/26/24, we reviewed another 4 of our peer’s Feature stories. During this editorial review, Sarah made a comment on Zak’s feature about the parking situation at UNE that I thought was particularly impactful. She mentioned that his article would be improved by adding a security, faculty, or staff member perspective, as his article seems to frame the issue of parking as only a student issue, or only from a student perspective. I thought this was important as it’s expanding the scope of the article a bit and trying to reposition to get a larger overall view of the problem and it’s effects on campus. Another impactful comment came from Sarah’s editorial review, about her feature on the GUST program at UNE. His comment, in response to her question of how her piece could be revised for length, was to try to communicate the most relevant and best information for the subject in as short of a time as possible. I thought this was important because it is basically the essence of journalistic writing; trying to get across your point concisely and precisely. It is additionally a common issue to have among our class, as the majority of us are used to writing essays and scholarly papers, which often are afforded larger word counts and are less focused on being concise.
I thought that Sarah and Nick both provided very constructive comments to the individuals who were being reviewed. Sarah expressed to a couple of people her recommendations about getting their word counts down, so that they could take peoples’ comments into consideration without going too far over the word count. Nick also helped a few people develop their stories by giving suggestions like comparing UNE to other colleges in Maine rather than to ones out of state, as well as different methods of keeping readers engaged by providing certain information that they were lacking.
After each review session, I feel more confident giving advice, notices changes needed to be made in my article and noticing others critiques. Some things that stood out to me from the last class was the importance of statistics and numbers, yes having clear information is reassuring and trustworthy but also minding the amount of information in an article and thinking strategically about how the words are being places and organised on the paper. Nick and Professor Jesse talked about comparing apples to apples, for these articles finding outside sources to compare UNE to may show throurness and explain weather it’s a topic specific to UNE or what we could do to improve it based on other schools. Finn mentioned that comparison can bring a new element to our projects and that it’s important to look at why this is one way verusues this, the other way. As Jesse said, capturing information accurately is the first step in setting up a great piece. Having the best/important and reliable information helps shape a concise and thorough article.
The first comment that was helpful was when a few different classmates, for example Westley and Finn, suggested to Evan to talk with the athletic director or the athletic doctor to see how to talk about the injuries. The suggestion went deeper with saying they would have the details about severity of injuries as well as what injuries were caused by contact or no contact. This can add more credibility to the paper as well as adding facts that can make the papers claim stronger. The second comment that was helpful talking about getting more stats om Zak’s story. Multiple students suggested adding more stats for example talking about schools in Maine as well as talking about different schools parking pass prices. These stats can add more credibility the paper as well as seeing other schools sides to the issues presented.
Tuesday’s class from an editorial standpoint was very impactful. First off, the first comment from Nick about Zak’s piece was about how he should examine how other Maine schools are with first year parking and how it could impact our school. This is helpful because it would be able to compare other schools in Maine and be able to keep the reader engaged. Another comment came from Finn where he said to make quotes more digestible and more reader friendly.I thought this was very well put because it would help reader engagement. This will be helpful because it will be able to make the article a lot stronger and easier to read.
From an editorial standpoint there were a couple of comments that stood out to me personally. I liked Tony’s comment a lot about how making the writing more generalized may hurt the paper more than harm. The reason I like it is because I feel like personally it is difficult to make everyone like you’re reading and so i think that sometimes a paper being specific is what makes it good they have to be topics that people want to read, and I think the important part of that is that not everyone is going to want to read everything. Another comment that I liked was Finn’s about finding the story. I thought this was important because it was something that at first when we got this assignment was something I struggled with and hearing that other people in the class may be struggling with the same thing was nice to know.
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 #10: EDITORIAL TEAM REACTIONS feedback group #2(focus on 2 comments)
In my opinion the two most helpful comments made during this feedback session were #1 remember to break up the large paragraph Mr. Miller suggested the Three sentence rule for shorter paragraphs. The three sentence rule will definitely be beneficial for me when trying to edit my final draft and I’m sure it will also benefit several other students in the class as well. #2 The second comment that I thought was useful was don’t put yourself or your opinions in the piece, get out of the way and have someone who knows nothing about the topic read the story. It’s easy to get too involved in your piece when it is something you are passionate about and that’s why it’s important to have an outside perspective look it over. Try not to add opinions or details someone wouldn’t understand if they don’t know anything about the topic already.