Reflection on Project Two

This blog post will look over my own revision process and how I composed the final draft of my last essay.

Hallye Becker, "Screen shot from my computer aka this was too funny to not put on my blog"
October 21st,2015

1. My first draft lacked a lot of evidence and analysis. The transitions were choppy, my introduction was too long, and there was not enough "directness" in me leading the direction of the essay. Since I tend to revise several times, I worked through each paragraph quite a few times to try to really build up the ideas more and more in each revision.                                           
2. The "revised" thesis I wrote was much stronger than the first one I wrote. It was more specific in terms of what I would be discussing in the essay, though even then it needed to have a more "explicit" standpoint. My organization stayed mostly the same, though the transitions and linkage of ideas between them were made more clear.                                                                        
3. These changes were mostly brought about by peer editing. It was pointed out to me some arguments about my audience were unclear or weak, so I reconsidered who the author was speaking for and tried to be more specific.                                                                                         
4. I would argue that these revisions made me more credible. Having a weak rhetorical analysis in a paper directly specified for such would make me look uncertain about the topic I am writing about, and would likely make me look less credible. Good revisions make the author look more credible.                                                                                                                                                
5. This paper is interesting in that you really have to consider two audiences: who the author is speaking to, and who you are discussing this audience for. By having a greater understanding of who the author was speaking for can help me find the right language to explain the rhetoric used, and make the paper more accessible to my own audience.                                                        
6. Some of my sentences were a bit choppy or had incorrect punctuation. My revisions attempted to improve the overall flow of the writing and keep a consistent style that would appeal to my audience.                                                                                                                                              
7. As mentioned before, a clear and well-written paper is likely to be more accessible to a larger audience. I may be able to look at my own writing and understand the argument I was attempting to make, but the reader may end up confused or lost.                                                         
8. I would occasionally refer to the rubric/conventions of this assignment to assure myself I was writing the paper correctly. I rarely had to reconsider my conventions, as I have written several rhetorical analysis papers before, but writing to a very specific audience was new for me.               
9. Each paper I write helps shape and consider my identity as a writer. I would like to consider myself a good writer, but it is noticeable that when an assignment does not have my full interest or investment that my writing falters. I would consider this one of my weaker papers, as I struggled some with finding enough content to argue everything to the extent I desired. I need to be aware that not every paper will capture my full attention, and work to create a strong paper none the less.

Reflection

I read Michael's blog first. He and I agreed on a lot of topics, such as how revision makes us more credible authors and how we felt the changes we made helped address our audience better. However, Michael seemed more assured of his final paper of than I feel about mine. It made me feel like I may need to go back and finish up revising one or two more quick times so that my essay is stronger. Perhaps I'll read his for comparison.
I also read Evan's reflection.  Again, Evan and I agreed frequently. We both felt as though we have a stronger researching background than an effective analysis background, and felt like we focused too much on summarization at times. This will something I will definitely need to work on, because my field frequently requires in-depth analysis.