 |
| Penaud,Georgia. "NICO looks at himself" 2006 via wikimedia. Public Domain. |
1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
I mostly took some of the advise I got from the peer edits, a little at a time, and tried to work minor sentences to fit the feedback. In that sense, I added pictures and other elements to fit the genre better. I also felt like I got off track, but the edits brought me back, and I made the content relevant to a refutation argument.
2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
The main thing was staying true to my thesis throughout the op-ed. In doing this, it helped that other people read it, and could point out that I left it a bit, plus reading it myself after a week of having not thought about it helped.
3. What led you to these changes?
I guess just realizing that my thesis wasn't being adequately supported.
4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
They should help to build it, as a well structured essay is always more convincing, as it sounds like it's coming from an intelligent person. On the other hand, if it's poorly constructed, a reader would probably assume a) the topic wasn't important enough to give full attention to detail, and b) the writer wasn't smart enough to structure it properly, so why is their input valuable?
5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
Since now the whole piece is structured properly, it is all aimed at the target audience, rather than just the first couple paragraphs, followed by some drifting, wandering, rambles about space.
6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
Mostly for clarification, I revised some sentences to make more sense, like "However, Money is money - nothing is special about that which is given to NASA." as opposed to just skipping to "just because that money isn’t being spent on Earth, or that it’s spatially the furthest from helping with those problems..." things like this, I think just make my point a bit clearer.
7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
Hopefully, by eliminating the barriers (meaning confusing sentences, and unexplained ideas) to my audience, they can get a direct understanding of my argument, at which point it is up to if it is any good itself.
8. Did you have to reconsider the genre you are writing in?
I did, actually. I included captions for images, the font style, an end bio, and some other little things to make it look more like an LA Times op-ed.
9.How does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
It forces me to be aware of the things I kinda just did on autopilot. I guess that's pretty helpful, as if I can control those things, I'll be able to write well without even trying. But, for the most part, it just shows me I've got a long way to go before that is possible.
