<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: O&#8217;Neill Surf Camp 2008</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rmc205a1.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/oneill-surf-camp-2008-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rmc205a1.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/oneill-surf-camp-2008-2/</link>
	<description>We keep you up to date with the newest marketingtools</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:19:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: rmc205a1</title>
		<link>http://rmc205a1.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/oneill-surf-camp-2008-2/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>rmc205a1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:19:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rmc205a1.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/oneill-surf-camp-2008-2/#comment-26</guid>
		<description>Give the writer this completed form and the advertorial with corrections.
Appendix 3B – Weblog advertorial peer review form
Weblog Advertorial Peer Review Form B – Second Review

Writer&#039;s Name	__CV205A1_______

Assessor’s name	__CV205A2________

Date	__January 8, 2008_________________

Rating Scale:	1 = Yes	2 = Somewhat	3 = No 

Rate the advertorial by giving a 1, 2 or 3 for each question. Read the advertorial once to get a general idea of what it is about, then read it a second time to rate it.

1.	Is the topic interesting? 	_1__ 
2.	Is the title original and appropriate?	_1__
3.	Is the introduction complete?	_1__
4.	Is the body of your advertorial complete?	_1__
5.	Is the conclusion well-developed?	_2__
6.	Is the advertorial well-organized overall?	_1__
7.	Is the advertorial easy to understand?	_1__
8.	Is the advertorial interesting to read? 	_1__
9.	Has any plagiarised material been removed?	_3__

Do you feel that the writer has improved the advertorial? Why or why not? Be specific.
Yes, it is more complete. They really tell more about the activities and surfing itself. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Has the writer changed the advertorial adequately according to your suggestions for improvement of your first assessment? Describe the changes and state specifically whether you think they are an improvement.
Yes, they expanded the body and added a conclusion. They give a lot more information about the activities and surfing itself. This makes it a more complete advertorial and more interesting to read. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are you happy to have this advertorial on your weblog? Why or why not? Be specific.
Yes, it is a very interesting subject which is really specified for the O’Neill target group. I think the visitors of the weblog will find it interesting to read. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Give the writer this completed form.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Give the writer this completed form and the advertorial with corrections.<br />
Appendix 3B – Weblog advertorial peer review form<br />
Weblog Advertorial Peer Review Form B – Second Review</p>
<p>Writer&#8217;s Name	__CV205A1_______</p>
<p>Assessor’s name	__CV205A2________</p>
<p>Date	__January 8, 2008_________________</p>
<p>Rating Scale:	1 = Yes	2 = Somewhat	3 = No </p>
<p>Rate the advertorial by giving a 1, 2 or 3 for each question. Read the advertorial once to get a general idea of what it is about, then read it a second time to rate it.</p>
<p>1.	Is the topic interesting? 	_1__<br />
2.	Is the title original and appropriate?	_1__<br />
3.	Is the introduction complete?	_1__<br />
4.	Is the body of your advertorial complete?	_1__<br />
5.	Is the conclusion well-developed?	_2__<br />
6.	Is the advertorial well-organized overall?	_1__<br />
7.	Is the advertorial easy to understand?	_1__<br />
8.	Is the advertorial interesting to read? 	_1__<br />
9.	Has any plagiarised material been removed?	_3__</p>
<p>Do you feel that the writer has improved the advertorial? Why or why not? Be specific.<br />
Yes, it is more complete. They really tell more about the activities and surfing itself. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p>Has the writer changed the advertorial adequately according to your suggestions for improvement of your first assessment? Describe the changes and state specifically whether you think they are an improvement.<br />
Yes, they expanded the body and added a conclusion. They give a lot more information about the activities and surfing itself. This makes it a more complete advertorial and more interesting to read. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p>Are you happy to have this advertorial on your weblog? Why or why not? Be specific.<br />
Yes, it is a very interesting subject which is really specified for the O’Neill target group. I think the visitors of the weblog will find it interesting to read. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p>Give the writer this completed form.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
