Please fill out this worksheet when you respond to your Peer Review partners.

Before doing so, please review Tips for Making Suggestion in a Tactful Way. (http://arc.academyart.edu/online/tact.asp) This will help you effectively and tactfully respond to your classmates' rough drafts.

Your Name: Your Partners Name:

Lejla Brackovic Tung-Yu Tan

1. List two aspects of the review that are strong and working well. In traditional method, builders need to make a wooden mold forming the concrete and then move to the construction site to build up, but it is limited by weather and the complexity of the object. Using 3D printing technique can present the designer's digital model perfectly, and also avoid delays caused by weather. we understand it and it explains it to us. Another strength of 3D printer is easy for change the design, if it necessary to change the design, all the designer needs to do is changing the digital model file, he doesn't need to order a new wooden mold, wait for good weather and forming concrete. This technique even be used for the space station of Europe Space Agency(ESA) on the moon. In Janjaap's estimation, the traditional method needs 18 months to finish the construction, but 3D printing will only need 6-12 months Again tells us what is so special about it and keeps us reading more. 2. How is it clear that the writer actively reviewed the piece? If this is not clear, what could be added to make this clearer? For me this is not so much a review of the piece but more the story of the 3D printer. I would like to hear more about maybe you trying it or your experience and thoughts about it now, before and maybe even what it will be like in the future. Now its more a summary of how it became. 3. How does the writer set a physical context for the piece? Is should be clear where he or she viewed this and what the context of the piece (or exhibit) is. Again, this goes into my answer above. Still thou, it explains to us how and what it can print out which kind of gives us a physical idea of how it looks in real life. 4. How does your partner discuss the historical or cultural context of the piece? What information would be helpful to include (if it's not included here)? This part is done very well. It is explained how we got there, who got the idea of it, etc. I would like to know if he got any more help from anyone? Was he the

only one on the market trying to develop something like this and just the first one to publish it or? Is this the first we have seen of something like this in history? This is small points, overall good summary of the history behind.

5. How has your partner given specific descriptions of the piece, or part of the piece (this could be a scene from a movie, one piece in an exhibit, or a part of a painting)? Did they use the list of elements and principles, discussed in module 10, or some of the descriptive tactics from module 13? Which areas could use more description? Do you have a clear sense of how the work appears or is conveyed to the viewer? Another strength of 3D printer is easy for change the design, if it necessary to change the design, all the designer needs to do is changing the digital model file, he doesn't need to order a new wooden mold, wait for good weather and forming concrete. Overall I get the idea of what he is printing and how it will look. You could be a little more descriptive of the final product thou and what else it could print. 6. What is the writers evaluation criteria for the work? List that here: 7. Which sentences show the writers analysis and interpretation of the work? (Hint: This is where the writer discusses how the work does or does not meet the evaluation criteria.) To be hones I am not sure if the work is analyzed and because of this I think it could have been done a little better. The last paragraph thou, is as close as I got to a personal analyzed interpretation. And here is one sentence as an example: Janjaap's "Landscape House" has different meaning for people, for 3D printing technique developer and related business, it is a milestone of 3D printing application. The demands of 3D printer are not only small items prototype but also the huge as construction;

8. Which places (if any) could benefit from more research? I wouldnt say that you necessary need so much more research, however, you really need to get your grammar straight. English is my second language to so I understand you. Still, there are so many mistakes that should not be there. Ask th ARC for help! They are great.

9. Did you partner cite his or her sources according to MLA style?

Yes, but remember they need to be on a SEPARTE page.

10. List two overall suggestions for improvement for the writer. Grammar needs to improve! For me, some places get a little to long and looses my interest. That might be because I dont know much about architecture and 3D printing. I still think that you should try to read it out loud and see if there is anything you can shorten up or rewrite.

Good Luck