Revision Matrix:

Text From My A Comment or The Change(s) I How This Change

Initial WP Question I Received Made to What I Impacts My Paper
Submission Originally Wrote

WP1: grab the Allison: there were grab the consumers’ This makes my paper
consumers attention some grammar issues attention flow better and gives
with possessives the readers a better
understanding of the
text.

WP1: ...if they feel Allison: Some if they feel the need Breaking up into a
the need to do so. paragraphs are to do so. new paragraph shows
Unfortunately, when making multiple Unfortunately, that a new topic is
making the points. You might when making the going to be discussed.
packaging... want to consider packaging The essay is more
breaking up these cohesive when each
paragraphs new topic is
discussed in a new
paragraph.

WP1: ...to a younger Allison: there were to a younger audience Taking away extra
audience, however, some grammar issues however, the snacks commas that are
the snacks are with commas are packaged unnecessary makes
packaged... the paper less choppy
and much easier to
read.

WP1: They include Me: when reading They include large I removed some
large and bold words this through I found it and bold words words that felt
printed in bright, to be awkward to printed in bright, awkward to be read
colorful letters or a read colorful letters or a back so that the paper
bright or colorful bright or colorful flowed better. The
background which is background meant to words were
meant to grab the grab the customer’s distracting and the
customer’s attention. attention. awkwardness
distracted from the
meaning of the
sentence

WP1: Bright and bold Randi Browning: The bright and bold The words “can be”
letters and a bright substitute active letters and a bright makes the writing
background can be powerful verbs for background are found seem unsure of itself
seen on the Ritz weak or passive. on the Ritz Crackers so changing to a more
Crackers packaging packaging which has active phrase gives
which has big yellow big yellow letters and readers no doubt that
letters and red red background what is being written
background is true information

WP1: The packaging Randi Browning: The Cheetos I removed some

for Cheetos has the delete repetition. Add Packaging uses the repeat information
mascot, Chester the more powerful verbs mascot, Chester the that made the
Cheetah, on the front Cheetah, on the front sentence feel
and the packaging for and the Pringles and cluttered and changed
Pringles and M&M’s M&M’s packaging some of the wording
have their respective use their respective so the sentence said
mascot on the front as mascot as well. what it needed to and
well. no more. This makes
the paper flow better
and gives readers a
better understanding
of my argument
because they do not
have to think too
deeply to understand
the simple message.

WP1: ...issue or Me: while reading ...allowing them to When reading a

demand. through I felt as if quickly compare each paper, it is easiest to
Although there are this paragraph would snack to each other if follow along when
four different authors fit better sooner in the they feel the need to the ideas from one
for the packaging… paper so that there do so. paragraph flow nicely
following the same could be a transition Although there are to the next. Changing
conventions for food from why they are four different authors the order of my
packaging. similar to why the for the packaging… paragraphs allow for
When a need for a similarity works. following the same a more smooth
snack arises... conventions for food transition so readers
packaging. can stay connected
Unfortunately, with the points I am
when making the making.
packaging…

WP2: These two Allison: Thesis is These two articles Changing the thesis
articles provide an in only focused on provide an in depth to completely answer
depth look at the comparison of genre look at the process of the prompt allows for
process of conventions, but what cheesemaking a more in depth
cheesemaking from is the difference through the use of analysis of the topic
the point of view of between disciplines? argument made, being discussed. It
two separate analysis of sources, opens up the paper to
discourse audience in mind, and a wider range that it
communities to show organization of is able to cover and is
that the disciplines of information. Using more relevant to what
chemistry and history the point of view of is being asked.
have very different two separate
ways of approaching discourse
writing when it communities
comes to the highlights the
argument made, differences between
analysis of sources, scholarly
audience in mind, and communities and how
organization of those differences are
information. created.

WP2: Kethireddipalli, Allison: footnotes Prashanti Making sure the

Prashanti and Arthur shouldn’t be in Kethireddipalli and footnotes and
R Hill. "Rennet bibliography form. Arthur R Hill, citations are perfect is
Coagulation and "Rennet Coagulation important for keeping
Cheesemaking and Cheesemaking the paper credible and
Properties of Properties of plagiarism free.
Thermally Processed Thermally Processed
Milk: Overview and Milk: Overview and
Recent Recent
Developments." Developments,"
Journal of Journal of
Agricultural and Agricultural and
Food Chemistry 63, Food Chemistry 63,
no. 43 (2015): 9389. no. 43 (2015): 9389.

WP:2 While writing Me: I noticed that my While writing the When the topic
the article, two very topic sentences were article, two very sentence outline the
different aspects are a little weak and did different aspects are whole main point and
looked at in regard to not cover the entirety looked at in regard to everything that is
what exactly is being of the main point I what exactly is being being discussed in the
examined. was attempting to examined which paragraph, it is easier
make in the provides additional for readers to follow
paragraph. insight into how the along as they are
discourse already set up for
communities differ. what the rest of the
paragraph is going to
be talking about.

WP2: ...topic. Randi Browning on ...topic. The analysis I added some analysis
While... Revision strategies: in the history paper is and explanation
 ADD: more concrete going to be revealed where I believe my
examples, in a way that the paper was lacking so
explanation, context average person could there would be more
and more. grasp the main point evidence and reason
of the article and and the paper would
learn something new make a stronger
without the need to argument to the
understand complex reader.
questions or ideas.
While...

WP2: This piece of Me: As I was reading The authors included It is important to
information is a my paper I found that this information as a make sure that all the
straight fact that was this sentence was fact that was sentences in the paper
found during the awkward and did not discovered during the are not awkward and
research of the really fit in the essay research process of are easy to follow as
article. the way it was this article and is well as keep with the
originally written. written as simple and flow of the writing.
straightforward This makes it easier
information. to be read and
understood by others.

WP2: ...relates to a Me: I felt as if parts ...relates to a specific The more analysis
specific topic. of my paper were topic. This difference and explanation
lacking in analysis shows that the included in a paper,
and explanation. discourse community the deeper
of chemistry writers connections that are
only looks to inform made and the more
others in the group convincing the
and remain closed off argument is. It is
to other readers while better for the reader
the historical to read this.
discourse community
is more open to
spreading knowledge
to those who want to
learn.

WP2: Reading an Me: I found this Reading an argument Adding as much

argument based on lacking in based on statistics explanation as I could
statistics sends a explanation sends a different to every paragraph is
different message message than reading crucial to getting my
than reading an an article based on point out to readers
article based on historical information and makes my
historical information and further provides argument more clear
and further provides insight into the and persuasive.
insight into the different writing
different writing styles of the discourse
styles of the discourse communities and how
communities. the communities
differ as a whole.
Where the historians
wants to spread
information they
gathered to the public
to gain more
knowledge, the
chemists intend to
keep their writing
within the specified
discourse community.

WP2: While they are Randi Browning: While they are I changed this
attempting to give an delete details that attempting to give an sentence around to
overview of these distract the reader, overview of these make the information
processes, the repetition etc. add processes, the less repetitive which
audience can see that details. rearrange audience can see that makes the ideas blend
the article is going to the article is going to together better and
be very technical in be very technical. lets the reader see the
the way it is written. This technicality main point. I also
This technicality reveals that the rearranged so the
reveals that the questions discussed topics would flow
analysis is going to will involve more smoother from one to
be very exact and is data to support the next. I added
meant for those who theories rather than more specific detail
are in this same field straight facts which so I have more to
of research. The shows preciseness make my argument
questions that they and its intent for an more convincing. All
are going to be audience in the field of these changes
looking at will of chemistry. together make for a
involve a lot of data more concise section
rather than just facts that is easier to read
and information. and follow along with
instead of being
bombarded with extra
useless information
that has no use to the
paper overall.