If were to grade my work on the technical description, I would put myself in the range of 90-95. Firstly, my report includes all of the necessary components listed in the assignment sheet, and each adheres to the appropriate genre conventions. The cover page and table of contents are simple enough, and the definition is a clear and concise description of the object’s purpose and basic function. The overview is where I think there’s room for improvement. My overview does provide a detailed explanation of the appearance of a bike and broad descriptions of it’s components. However, I wrote that the appearance can vary, and opted to describe the general structure of a bike, noting that after the essentials different models can have changes. In hindsight, this description would’ve been more effective had I chosen to describe a specific type of bike or a specific model. When writing, I thought it would be better to give a basic outline since my report doesn’t specifiy a model, so I said that the components I mentioned are what every bike must have. It would’ve been better to reframe my entire report to focus on a specific bike model. However, even though the subject of my report may have been a little too broad, I think my language is as precise as it needs to be for this description. My next section is the components, which lays out the details of each component mentioned in the overview. The descriptions are also aided by visuals to help the reader better understand what is being described. These descriptions are pretty short, and give extra context as to how the component contributes to the structure of the object as a whole, and I think they are effective. Finally, the conclusion provides extra context to the bike not mentioned throughout the report, like it’s history and how the design had seen many different iterations, and ends by discussing bike safety precautions. Furthermore, the description maintains a consistently professional tone, and always uses formal language. The writing is concise, clear, and generally easy to understand, and I do a good job of avoiding vague language. In summation, I’d mostly dock points because the overview section could’ve been more specific. I thought that since my report wasn’t about a specific model but the bicycle in general, it would be better to be consistent and not mention a model, but I think it would’ve been more effective had a chosen the alternative.