20/20

So, there's nobody left on the Grading Grid because I'm a slacker and Ted did four, so I decided to do yours because you are one of Ted's victims and I figured your project would be easy to grade. I read your rough draft and found it to be impressive. Your diction is minimal and your details are crisp. (E-prime is not necessary at all times and places.) I liked it. Also, I found your unemphasized management style to be easy on my eyes. (I'm a big fan of short paragraphs.) At first I thought your system was not uniform, but I realized that the title, ironically, I'm sure, REFLECT, is at the bottom of the page. Conventions don't matter, but defiance is startling at first. Here's my Grading Scheme:

Draft: You read it all already.

Remixes: Overall appropriate. I felt that my narrative was the most profoundly changed. You made yourself the narrator and gave my formless blob of narrator some character. I dig it but I didn't use it because I wanted It to be ubiquitous. The recommendations you added to Ted's and John's narratives covered the details that should have been included to improve the readability and believability of each. My only complaint is that there wasn't more to it.

Final: I can't say that I liked it more than your rough draft for all of the work that you put into it, but I like it just the same. You polished your grammar up and it makes the document easier to take in, but it kills the free verse thing you had going on. The rough draft made me want to read it again, but the final made sure I didn't.

John, I agree with your assessment. Scott's diction, his troping of titling conventions, and active remix efforts add up to a job well-done. Your rationale is robust. However, citing passages and making links to substantiate your reading would greatly enhance your rationale, and make it an even more valuable resource for Scott, and for all of us feedbacking on this wiki. -ShareRiff

Dans l'esprit du wiki.