Reflection on Project 1 Draft

I definitely had trouble getting my draft off of the ground..

                  like it was really really bad.

Pdpics. "Eggs Expressions Happy Sad." 2-7-13 via Wikipedia. CC S-AA.

Assuming that my readers are fairly educated when it comes to social entrepreneurship, I think my QRG does well with explaining the controversy with enough detail that they're not bored but not so much that a novice would be overwhelmed and stop reading. With that said, I think I could probably provide some more detail in certain spaces so that the article is interesting and informative for all readers.
I'm not sure if there are really relevant biases when this controversy is in question. Maybe people are against doing good things for the world but other than that, I think the only possible bias is that some people might be opposed to blurring the lines between the nonprofit and for-profit sectors. I don't think I make any strong statements supporting either side of this belief, so I think everyone's opinions are pretty well respected in my writing.
I definitely don't know the readers values or expectations, but I would assume they're expecting to learn more about the Unitus controversy since they're reading my QRG. With that in mind, I'd say I'm definitely meeting their expectations.
I need to give my audience enough information to understand what this controversy is about, but not so much that I confuse them with information that is irrelevant or extra. I think I've provided a tasteful amount of background information because my summary of entrepreneurship (and social entrepreneurship) is brief, and my background of the Unitus situation is pretty minimal. In fact, I should probably provide a bit more background information on Unitus.
I think casual language is suitable. There's no need to dress up my writing when I can explain this controversy to people in a conversational manner.
My tone is fairly conversational, which I think makes reading my piece a little more comfortable for my audience. It seems like my tone stays the same throughout the piece but I really should check on that to make sure it flows.

After the peer review process, I've realized that my writing can be read a lot of different ways. With that in mind, I'm going to work to be more specific with some of my phrasing and examples while still maintaining a conversational tone. I also want to review each sentence and make sure they flow through each other. It's important to me that my piece is easy to read through as well as informative.