My project was an online article about plastic sea pollution and its harms and it goes on to how we can resolve the issue, and attached with it was an infographic giving small facts in relation with the article.
The project was aimed for an audience aged around 13 years old or younger. I have done the article in a way where one doesn’t see a huge chunk of text as soon as they look at it and it is divided into paragraphs and bulleted forms – mentioning facts as they would be the most intriguing to read. This did help make the article more interesting and it did reach its initial aim which was to educate on what we should do to reduce this problem. However, the infographics was there to help the article seem more interesting, to get the audience to be more interested in reading the article and finding solutions – but I don’t think it did it justice as it was made up of all relevant facts but not facts that will encourage you to actually do something, I feel as it didn’t reach its initial purpose.
I feel as if my strengths in this project were mostly in the pre-production of it all and retrieving information from experts in the field. The structuring of what my article needed to include and look and finding reliable sources. However, the actual production I lacked in it. The infographic as I mentioned previously shouldn’t have been done that way, I feel as if it included actual pictures of what the said topic is causing and showing the actual harm it would have been more affective and what is written at the end of the article would have made more of an impact.
Another factor I feel I should have done better was that I should have kept the target audience in mind throughout as in the beginning my article was more for an older audience so I had to re-think it all and put the information as like an outline, hence this put me back in the time I had to finish.
For the peer review I didn’t get much feedback, except for three people mentioning that they thought the infographics did meet the target audience – and I think that only the first part of it actually did. Another two factors they mentioned where about the background music that it matched with the infographic and the voice over was done professionally and I did agree with this point as I feel that Mark (voice over) projected the facts well and gave them life, as he spoke them in a way that gives out meaning and pre-caution.
I wasn’t given any feedback on the article, I think this was because all I could do in the peer review was explain briefly what it was about.
My final thought on this project would be, a positive one regarding the article however of course it could have been done better. But towards the infographics it is a negative one as I feel it should have included much more work and that as I said it could have been done different.