This third paper overall lacked some analysis and was missing important parts, such as

the rhetorical situation in section two, that would have helped the paper make more sense. In my
revision, I added the rhetorical situation of the NASA website in the introduction to text sections
as well as added more analysis that went along with my analytics to make a valid claim. This
paper was complicated to write because of how analyzing the rhetorical concept of embodied
rhetoric in a website requires a physical form of writing. I could have made the introduction to
the text clearer by starting with the rhetorical situation instead of having some parts of the
rhetorical situation scattered in that section. My analytics section mainly listed the analytics of
embodied rhetoric, but it never applied the analytics to my thesis and my analysis. By not having
in-depth analysis, my conclusion was disheveled and lacked closure. This did not help my
overall claim of the paper because I did not provide enough discussion and meaning towards the
end that concluded my complete idea.

I learned from this paper that I should stay with my writing process and not stray away.
This paper was rushed because I did not create an outline which is the key to my writing process.
I added detail and analysis while I was writing the paper instead of having an outline with detail
and analysis already thought out. My analytics and discussion section reflect my carelessness of
not planning out this paper beforehand.