Revision Document

Text from my initial

WP submission

An observation or
How this change
question I received
The change(s) I
impacts my paper:
from De Piero or a
made to what I
classmate
initially wrote:
The public and the
Im not quite sure what
Overall, the CNN
I felt that what the
authors should
youre arguing here.
and Huffingtion Post
thesis I initially had
equally be aware of
Remember: your reader articles were the most
didnt have a clear
the use of genres,
is most likely going to
effective in
argument at all. In
such as scientific
be expecting a thesis
conveying the
this thesis I am much
journalism, to convey statement at the end of
discovery of the
more specific, and I
information as it can
your Intro (or
Olinguito to the
argued that the CNN
affect expression of
occasionally 2nd
general public
and Huffington Post
such topics and in
paragraph) that clearly
because of the
articles were much
turn affect the
detail what
authors use of casual
more effective in
publics reception to point/argument/stance
tone, common
grabbing the
the authors writing
theyre taking and what language, and general audiences attention,
evidence theyre basing
organization in the
and therefore
that on. Right now, I
article.
accomplishing their
dont know where
goal. I was also much
youre taking me. I
more clear on HOW
know youre looking at
they did this (
CNN, BBC, and Huff
through tone,
pieces, but what
language etc.) This
(specifically) about
the focus of my paper
them?
much more clear and
also made it so I was
actually arguing
something instead of
simply stating things.
because according to
1, you need a p# for
According to Janet
I explained that Boyd
Boyd, jargon -when
direct citations
Boyd, author of
was an author, which
used in the wrong
Murder!
gives her credibility.
genre - can exclude
2, Who is this person?
(Rhetorically
This is important
those outside of the
Why is it worth
Speaking), jargon because it validates
community who do
listening to their ideas?
when used in the
some of my analysis
not understand the
wrong genre - can
and therefore makes
meanings of the
It makes for stronger
exclude those
my paper more
words.
writing, I think, if you
outside of the
convincing to my
can key your reader into community who do
audience.
why youre bringing
not understand the
this person into the
meanings of the
discussion.
words (89)
The addition of this
This transition isnt
Mentioning her gives
I changed topic
interview only adds
doing it for me, Neph.
substance and
sentence of the next

standing to the article.

This leads into certain
differences in the
article.
Overall, the BBC
article seems to have
the most proper tone
out of all three

While the CNN

article addresses the
reader directly with
you and in a
conversational tone
asks if the reader was
a fan of technical
names and then
introduces the
scientific name

Dittmars and Ayers

publication seems to
be the most well
supported argument
because of their use
of statistical analysis
and broad evidence,
when compared to
The Guardian article
which simply
reiterates information
and OConnors
publication which has
an extremely
opinionated
argument.

Can you think of

another way to get from
Pt.A to Pt. B?

scientific accuracy to paragraph that related

the information the
back to my thesis and
authors are reporting what I was arguing. I
to the public.
think this made what
The BBC further
I was trying to
quotes other
accomplish more
professionals,
clear within the
although the style of
paragraph. The
the CNN quotes is
transition I had
more effective in
before was more of a
keeping the audience statement and didnt
interested. In addition
quite relate back to
to quoting Helgen,
my argument.
This is an incomplete
The CNN article
I decided to separate
sentenceit lacks a
addresses the reader this sentence because
subject/noun (who or
directly with you
the idea I was trying
what the sentence is
and then asks if the
to explain was very
about) and a
reader was a fan of
unclear in the first
verb/predicate that,
technical names and
draft. The two
together, form a
then introduces the
separated sentences
complete thought.
scientific name. This brings my idea across
is much more
much more clearly,
conversational.
and gets rid of any
confusion that was
there with the
incomplete sentence.
Good newsthis is a
Dittmars and Ayers
The when did
publication seems to
make this argument
be the most well
unclear. To clear up
The could-be-better
supported argument
my argument I
news: the
because of their use
separated the first
wording/structure here of statistical analysis part of the sentence. I
took me a couple of
and broad evidence.
also added that the
read-throughs to
The Guardian article
two other articles
understand what you
simply reiterates
were less effective,
were getting at. Any
information, while
which I think made
way you could make it
OConnors
my argument more
clearer? (the when
publication has an
stronger/more clear.
connector is throwing
extremely
me off, and it also looks
opinionated
like information and
argument, making
OConnor is 1 item
them each less
effective in
supporting their
argument than
Dittmar and Ayer.

Paragraph 4 ( hope
this is okay I didnt
want to copy the
whole paragraph)

This comment is in
reference to the whole
paragraph:
When I see thiseven
before I start readingI
think, Ahhhhhhh!
Attack of the pageAND-A-HALF-long
paragraph!
Helllllllllllllllllp!
See if you like this
metaphor:
Pretend your whole
paper is a big, juicy
steak. Do you want
your reader to enjoy that
steak in easy-to-chew,
digestable bites? Or do
you want them to start
eating the whole thing
in one piece (think:
zombie).
Paragraphs are like
those bites. Give your
reader your argument in
little, digestable, oneidea-at-a-time bits.
Readers need to be able
to see the different
parts/pieces/bites of the
argument that theyre
chewing on.

I decided to split this

paragraph up into 3
separate paragraphs
in order to not
overwhelm my
audience. I decided to
split it up into
paragraph about the
abstract, subtitles ,
and length of the
papers. I also
changed my topic
sentences such as
Dittmars and
Ayerspaper
contained an abstract,
or summary of the
research, which
clearly presented
their argument in a
condensed fashion,
in order to relate
them back to my
argument. I felt that
splitting up this large
paragraph definitely
made my paper easier
to read. Adding topic
sentences also
allowed me to sort of
remind my readers
of my argument and
further make my
point.