Reflection on Project 3 Draft (Updated)

NOTE: I now have comments on my draft, and the critiques were very similar to the ones I've already  thought of, which reinforces my original revision plan. There is some criticism of my use of commas, which I had to laugh about...I thought I'd toned the commas down! :) After reading the chapter in Rules for Writers, I was careful to review the use of them, and while they are all grammatically correct, they seem to be a distraction to the reader. I'll go over that part of the draft again.



1. Review One
Selena Carbajal

http://selenacarbajal19.blogspot.com/2015/08/draft-of-public-argument.html#comment-form

2. Review Two
Brittany Newland

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KhUY2cv66LhFx8-SaTb4JcIX4wniwtyhSQPTArSiLC4/edit


1. The purpose of the paper was to encourage awareness of photojournalism and its importance in world affairs and social evolution. The audience is made up of those who have an interest and concern in world affairs and preserve the profession's ability to give important images to the public. With no comments (yet) on the text I can't say how or if it was successful.

2. I'm revising the paper to polish the text and smooth the transitions between ideas.

3. I'm revising, at this point, for my own edification.

4. I am nearly certain that the paper will not change very much in length, as I don't plan on adding or deleting much information. With editing and clarifying ideas, it ought to be roughly the same length as it is now.
I am satisfied with the format as well; it is appropriate for the content.
The appearance will change. I will add more bold print in the form of subheadings to emphasize the separate arguments in the text.
I am also satisfied with the use of evidence. If anything I will edit the existing text to make the connections stronger.
The introduction could use some work, especially the opening lines. It begins too abruptly and may be too brief.
I closely followed the formula in the textbook for the structure and found it to be effective for my argument. No change.
The depth of the argument probably won't change that much either, as this would change the entire structure, which I see no reason to do.