Martin Mejia

Professor Kennedy

ENC 1102

13 March 2023

Revision Memo

My peer review draft for my Annotated Bibliography with Literature Review was, in a

word, unfinished. It was very rushed and missing a large chunk of what was needed. I felt okay

about the initial CARS model section of the assignment, but the original Annotated Bibliography

had no explanations linked to the AI summaries of the Article.

My peer reviews rightfully called me out on all the flaws which I mentioned, in addition

to others which I neglected. For one, I was told to try to paraphrase some more. I felt this was

valid criticism and adjusted it accordingly. I was also told that I should comment on if and what

ChatGPT got wrong in its summary. Additionally, I was reminded that I still need a works cited

page even with the bibliography.

As for the feedback draft, I was initially a bit confused. Our last Major Assignment, we

were given direct comments for our feedback draft so that we may try to improve the assignment

for our final-for-now draft. However I did not see anything like this, and it took me a while to

realize that the rubric itself was available and I could take notes from there.

My rubric “grade” reflected the fact that it simply was unfinished. I was happy to see that

the sources being used and my formatting were great, but the actual assignment lacked quite a

few key features. Again, I was missing the second half of my annotations. I went through them

all and wrote them, keeping in mind the idea that I should explain the flaws with the summaries

from the peer review. After that, I realized I was missing key steps of the CARS model. To be
quite honest, I still don’t fully understand the model, but I tried my best with my revisions of the

first segment and wrote a new conclusion to try to be more in-line with the writing model.