Revision Matrix

Text from my initial Comment/question The change(s) I made to How this change
WP submission draft: I received: what I initially wrote: impacts my paper:
WP1: 1st and 2nd body Allison: Hard to tell I decided to merge the This organizational and
paragraphs what argument the information from these content change provides
1st and 2nd body two paragraphs with their more context in the other
paragraphs are respective paragraphs on body paragraphs and
making. They seem structure. I also removed strengthens my
like summaries of their unargumentative paragraph structure. By
the articles. summary aspects, included reducing vagueness and
specificity and evidence to redundancies in these
my structure discussion, paragraphs, my paper’s
and focused on the concision also improves.
arguments each article was
making.
WP1: Footnotes Allison: Why is the I edited all footnotes to By making this change,
footnote number correspond to their correct my paper now correctly
repeated? number. I also made sure abides by the Chicago-
my footnotes were style format.
formatted correctly and
included more citations,
where necessary.
WP1: Paragraph on Allison: Provide I referenced vocabulary Including these pieces of
jargon and audience in more examples to words and the authors’ evidence strengthens my
the environmental back up your claim “abbreviations” section. discussion of how the
studies discipline environmental studies
authors appeal to a more
public audience.
WP1: Paragraph on the Allison: What else I discussed how the This change diversifies
psychology article’s does the article’s article’s structure also my argument and
structure structure tell us supports the psychology broadens the scope of
about the discipline’s aim to provide my paper. It provides
psychology empirical evidence for readers with a more
discipline? discoveries in human comprehensive
cognition and behavior. understanding of the
discipline’s purposes.
WP1: “The authors Allison: “authors” “The ‘Introduction’ section Correcting my paper’s
main argument…” is possessive establishes the authors’ mechanics increases its
hypothesis/argument…” clarity, readability, and
professionality. I also
reworded this sentence
to better fit with my
revisions.
WP1: Thesis statement Me: Revise thesis After making content These changes add
 statement to reduce changes to my body clarity to my thesis. I
wordiness and paragraphs, I had to also split my thesis into
improve its reword my thesis several sentences to
connection to the statement to better reflect improve reading flow
rest of the paper my revised paper. I also and avoid complex
broke up the sentence. sentence structure.
WP1: “Trotzke et Classmate: I'm not “Trotzke et al. follow…” Fixing this mechanical
als…” sure if the syntax is issue improves the
correct here syntax and grammar of
my paper.
WP1: “Van Loon et Classmate: You “The environmental This change reduces my
al...” could maybe try studies authors...” redundant use of “et al.”
using another way I also applied this advice
to reference the to other areas of my
article because the paper by implementing
'et al.' might get a alternative introductions.
bit repetitive
WP2: Discussion of Allison: One I added a paragraph’s Adding this content and
translation process question I have is worth of information that making note of the
about how you got details what steps I took specific Buzzfeed quiz
*3rd body paragraph your translation to and what convention conventions strengthens
look like an actual guidelines I followed to my paper’s analysis of
Buzzfeed quiz. get my translation to the non-academic genre.
How did you effectively resemble a It also better represents
accomplish the Buzzfeed quiz. I mentioned the specific components
visual aspects of including screenshots, of my translation. This
your translation? fonts, pictures, and more offers more context and
of the like. I also decided clarity for readers.
to include evidence from
my reference quizzes that
demonstrate these
conventions. I followed
that evidence with
examples from my own
translation to show how
my translation meets the
Buzzfeed quiz criteria.
 WP2: “Thus, Allison: Sentence “The disparity between Adding context at the
illustrating the fragment audiences illustrates the beginning of the
importance of a importance of a translation sentence provides
translation to a non- to a non-academic genre, specificity and
academic genre, such as such as an online quiz, to strengthens this
an online quiz, to make make this article more sentence’s main idea. I
this article more accessible.” also directly
accessible.” acknowledged the
audiences in the
preceding sentence,
optimizing the clarity of
my discussion here.
WP2: “However, this Allison: Use of “However, this rule can be Fixing this mechanical
rule can be modified and semi-colon is odd modified and bent to issue helps the sentence
bent to complement here complement other quiz flow more naturally. I
other quiz material that material that may not fit also replaced “like” with
may not fit that format; that format, as seen with “as seen with” to limit
like my select-what- my select-what-applies list casual vocabulary.
applies list quiz depicted quiz depicted above.”
above.”
WP2: “1. Trotzke, Me: Incorrect “1. Patrick Trotzke et al., Correcting these
Patrick, Katrin Starcke, format/punctuation "Pathological Buying formatting/punctuation
Astrid Müller, and in first footnote Online as a Specific Form errors keeps my paper
Matthias Brand. citation for this of Internet Addiction: A aligned with Chicago-
"Pathological Buying article Model-Based style guidelines. I also
Online as a Specific Experimental went through my
Form of Internet Investigation," PLOS One footnotes and fixed
Addiction: A Model- 10, no. 10 (2015): 1-13.” similar errors in other
Based Experimental citations.
Investigation." PLOS
One 10, no. 10 (2015).
1-13.”
WP2: “First, I analyzed Family Member: “First, I analyzed the 16 Reworking the
the 16 Maybe first point to Personalities ‘Free organization of this
Personalities personalit what is unique to Personality Test,’ which paragraph brings more
y test. Then, I reviewed the 16 Personalities prompts quiz takers to concision to my paper. I
two quizzes from the test, then move on indicate their position on a also decided to revise the
news and entertainment to describing the selection of statements, wording in the first
website, Buzzfeed…” next quizzes ranging from ‘Agree’ to sentence to limit
‘Disagree.’ Results for this redundancies throughout
*2nd body paragraph quiz…” the paragraph.
(focuses on online quiz
conventions)
WP2: “I modeled my Me: Provide “Excerpts of these By providing evidence, I
written translation after evidence/examples statements include: ‘You strengthened my
 the accessible usually stay calm, even translation analysis. This
introspective and under a lot of pressure’…” change also reduced the
psychological style of paragraph’s vagueness
statements used I added several sentences and offered a clearer
throughout the 16 to follow the sentence in sense of context and
personalities test.” the left column. I also purpose with regard to
included a sentence my translation.
detailing how this connects
to my quiz translation.
WP2: 3rd body Me: Paragraph is This paragraph had two While revising, I added a
paragraph too long – split in main parts: a discussion on lot of new content to this
two how I achieved my visual paragraph, and it became
translation and a segment very dense. By splitting
of how I translated the it in two, my paper’s
article content into the organization and reading
quiz. I separated the flow improve. It also
paragraph between these distinguishes between
two main arguments. To the different steps of my
improve flow, I also translation process.
revised the ending and
topic sentences.