For my first multiplatform assignment I chose to do a feature article on the recent bid made by Groundwork UK for a £1,100,000 redevelopment project of Winckley Square Gardens in Preston. I decided to write the piece with the angle that the historical preservation of the park was the most important thing during the redevelopment process. I decided on this angle because when interviewing the Groundwork leader Ben Williams he made it very clear that retaining the historical image of the park was the key part of the bid for the funds. This was mainly down to the fact that when a previous plan had been pitched to the heritage lottery fund which was going to modernise the park the people of Preston made their feelings known and specified that they wanted to make sure the history of the park was kept in tact. I think the angle which I chose for the story was the most interesting available and I enjoyed researching and learning about the park’s history.
The weakest aspect of my first story was by far the video content. My video was marked as a fail as it was not as long as specified in the MIP. The video was 27 seconds long when it should have been 35 (plus or minus 5 seconds). This is because I did not sufficiently check the MIP or the video when submitting my work and thought that the time limit for the video was 25 seconds. I can easily avoid making this mistake in the future by simply double checking my work before handing it in. I made good use of the images however, choosing pictures which were appropriate for the story and putting them in the text in good places to break the wall of text up, making reading the article a good experience. The other weak part of my first story was that my writing was far too vague and I focused far too much on the story’s context rather than the most interesting part which was by far the interview. I can avoid making this mistake in my second story by getting to the point quicker and explaining any points I make better, for example, where I said Preston’s history was obscure and buried I should have explained why I think that. I also need to make sure I hyperlink throughout my story as that makes for a more interesting piece. In the first story I feel my story choice was a good one but I let myself down with the writing and after receiving feedback am aware of what I need to do to improve on the second story.
In my second story I have attempted to rectify the mistakes of the first by starting the article with what I consider to be the most interesting part, stating clearly in the opening paragraph that Moor Park is getting redeveloped. I could have probably got to the interview quicker which would be better had the article been a hard news story but I intended to write it as a feature piece. I also think that my data could have been written better into the article, but having set myself a limit of around 1000 words it would have been difficult to do this while keeping within my word limit. My interview is placed well within the text and I have used the few pictures, took and edited by me, I have included fairly well. I have included hyperlinks in my second story which is something that I mistakenly did not do in my first, and I feel like my hyperlinks are well placed and the information they provide adds to the experience for the reader. I have also avoided making the same horrific mistake that I made in the first story I wrote which was mistakenly uploading a video that was 10 seconds too short. I feel like this mistake ultimately helped my work however as I made sure to spend a lot more time checking through my entire second story as opposed to the obvious bad job I did checking my first story. The map which I have included in my story doesn’t add anything to the information which the story itself intends to give, but it instead provides some interesting insight into which parks in the north-west of England have been funded by the same backers that funded both Avenham and Miller parks and are funding Moor Park. I did struggle somewhat when choosing what to use as a map/timeline, but I think what I chose was the best and most interesting option in the situation.