Text from my

initial WP
submission:
(a phrase,
sentence,
paragraph, idea,
move,
punctuation,
piece of
evidence, etc.)

An observation
or question I
received from
De Piero or a
classmate:

The change(s) I
made to what I
initially wrote:
(ie, the change[s] I
made to column 1)

How this
change impacts
my paper:

News websites all

produce news articles
on the same topics, but
each website presents
the topic in their own
way.

I want you to get right

to it. This
seems a bit fluffy to
me.
Intro: hook,
context/background,
thesis statement.
Keep this train rolling;
we're losing speed
right now.

However, even if they

fall under the same
genre not all of the
articles may adhere to
the proper conventions
of the genre.

This impacted
my paper since
this led directly
into my new
thesis statement.
IT got right to
the point of why
the sentence
matters and gave
an idea of what
my paper was
going to be
about. .

This isn't really an

argument -- it's a
description. You
need to carve out
some kind of tension
and "take a
stand" on this
genre/topic/sources
somehow.

Through the use of various

literary techniques,
conventions and rhetorical
features the articles
separate themselves from
one another but, at the cost
of impartial credibility.

To prove this, I will use

the bombing of the
hospital in Kunduz,
Afghanistan as my
topic and
show the similarities
and dissimilarities
between` three different
news websites.

I reduced the fluff of

this paragraph and got
right into what I wanted
to say.

I created a whole new

thesis which argues that
newspapers lose
credibility due to there
rhetorical features and
literary techniques.

This impacted
my paper since
this was a whole
new thesis
statement. I had
to either
completely
rewrite
paragraphs or
completely
delete them. This
also made my
paragraphs have
the so what?
value.

For my first source

Im wondering if your
paper would benefit
from re-structuring the
organization. Instead
of

First off all of the articles

start off with the literary
technique of the
emotionally charged
headline.

For my second source

-Source #1

With the rhetorical

features of the three pieces

The third and final

source

-Source #2
-Source #3

Could your
paper/argument unfold
a more
integrated/interwoven
way if you did
something like:

There are many

conventions for the factbased news article subgenre
I grouped the articles and
their information based on
ideas instead on what
article they are.

This impacted
my paper in that
it reduced the
amount f pages
from around 8
pages down to 5
and also
condensed the
information. By
this it grouped
my writing based
on ideas instead
of separate
articles making
information
easier to find and
read.

-Idea #1 (and then

incorporate sources 1,
2, 3)
-Idea #2 (and then
incorporate sources 1,
2, 3)
-Idea #3 (and then
incorporate sources 1,
2, 3)?

The news genre is very

broad. There are many
sub-genres created by
various news
companies
but they all fall under
the news genre.

This seems like a

thought that belongs
in the intro, doesn't it?

There are many

conventions for the factbased news article subgenre.
I completely cut this
paragraph out and
replaced it with one that
talked about the genre
conventions.

This impacted
my paper
because I
completed
deleted it and
replaced it with
an edited former
3rd paragraph.
This also allowed
my paper to keep
the train rolling
and not be to
tedious.

The conventions of
each piece were all
similar since all three
pieces fell under the
fact-based
news article genre.
However, that was not
the main point of these
piece. Each piece
presented the
topic, the Kunduz
hospital bombing,
differently.

OK, great -- I think

you need to get to
this RIGHT AWAY, ie,
paragraph #2.

This impacted
my paper
because it
allowed my
paper to get
right to the
I melded this paragraph point. Instead of
with another similar one having a fluffy
and made it into my new 2nd paragraph
2nd paragraph.
that was
essentially
another intro. I
now have a 2nd
paragraph that
pertains to my
argument.
One of the primary
conventions is that the
news article must be
based on legitimate
facts.