Text from my initial WP

submission:
(a phrase, sentence,
paragraph, idea, move,
punctuation, piece of
evidence, etc.)

An observation
or question I
received from
De Piero or a
classmate:

The change(s) I made to How this change

what I initially wrote:
impacts my
(ie, the change[s] I made paper:
to column 1)

Thousands and
millions of people drive by
billboards everyday, but
pass them so quickly that
they probably do not give
a second thought to the
ads effect on their
consumption.

Why "thousands"
and "millions"?
What's the
"thousands" part
do for you?

I took out Thousands

and millions of
People drive by
billboards everyday,
but pass them so
quickly that they
probably do not give a
second thought to the
ads effect on their
consumption.

This made my
paper more
concise from the
start. It took out
unnecessary
information and
got right to the
important part of
the essay.

The reason is that

billboards advertising food
use specific tactics of
persuasion to get
customers to buy their
products. Rhetoric is the
way that we use language
and images to persuade
(Carroll, 38).

"Flow" issue: this

sentence doesn't
transition from the
previous sentence
as smoothly as it
could. As a reader,
it seems like the
definition for this
term was just
plopped into a
sentence without
any connection to
what you just
wrote.

I made the transition into

the quote flow a little
better by making it more
clear how the sentences
actually connected.
The reason is that
billboards advertising
food use specific
tactics of persuasion,
or rhetorical devices,
to get customers to
buy their products.
The way that we use
language and images to
persuade is called
rhetoric (Carroll, 38).

This change
helps guide the
reader more
easily through my
intro paragraph,
and also
emphasizes the
importance of
rhetoric in my
argument

These
conventions, namely,
context, repetition, and
catchy slogans, ultimately
help the companies
achieve their goal of
affecting the consumers
who see them.

One way you

might be able to
get this thesis a bit
more specific is to
consider questions
like: affect how?,
what
consumers/audien
ce?, and what
about context?

I switched up the
punctuation to get the
sentence flowing better,
and I added a little to
answer the question of
why the companies would
use context, repetition,
and slogans in the ways
that they did.
These conventions
context, repetition,
and catchy slogans
ultimately help the
companies ingrain the

This change
helped my thesis
read much more
clearly, and also
gave it more
significance by
relating what the
billboard text is
doing to why it is
doing this.

Also, you threw a

couple of
somewhat big
comma parties in

the last two

sentences of your
intro. These are
twoperfect
opportunities to
use other types of
punctuation -parentheses and
dashes, primarily -to impact howyour
reader reads each
sentence.
I think you've
Since every aged
beaten this to
person has the potential
of being hungry and being death a bit.
in a car, none of the
messages are complex,
and therefore can appeal
to drivers, as well as
passengers of any age. A
child of a young age can
see the picture of food
that they could potentially
want, just as a child of
reading age can read the
word McDonalds or
burger, or a teenager or
adult can figure out which
exit to get off at to acquire
this food. No matter what
age a person is, the
salient pictures and
readable messages of
food billboards will
appeal.

For example, a
billboard advertising
Nestles chocolate
repeats the word Nestle
four times, amongst an
image of splashing
chocolate and other
Nestle brand food items.

You already told

me that.

company name and

product into the
consumers heads to
persuade the
customers.

I combined these
sentences into one
sentence that completely
hit the point I was going
for. I had trouble
consolidating this point,
and ended up being too
repetitive.
Since every aged
person has the
potential of being hungry
and being in a car, none
of the messages are
complex, and the pictures
and words are salient, the
billboards are built to
appeal to people of every
age.

My paper
became more
concise, and this
paragraph
became less
overwhelming.
The paragraph
was more
focused and my
intentions were
clearer, instead of
being a little allover-the-place.

I took out the repetitive

information.
For example, the
repetition on the
Nestl billboard lies
amongst an image of
splashing chocolate
and other Nestle
brand food items.

Towards the
beginning of the
course, I
struggled a lot
with repetition
issues. Changes
like this one
helped me
consolidate my
usually too-long
papers, and not
lose the reader in
my wordiness.

I looked at a popculture website called The

Odyssey, that has an
article written by college
student, Catherine
Guarino, called The Sad
Truth About Our College
Hookup Culture. In
contrast, I looked at an
academic article called
Development and
Validation of the
Endorsement of the
Hookup Culture Index
from The Society for the
Scientific Study of
Sexuality, written by
Jennifer Aubrey and
Siobhan Smith, as well as
an academic article called
College Student
Development and the
Hookup Culture, written
by Karen D. Arnold in the
field of developmental
studies.

See if you can rephrase it -- chop

down a few words
and maybe a
comma.

I made these sentences

much more concise.
I looked at a popculture article written by
college student Catherine
Guarino, called The Sad
And
Truth About Our College
Hookup Culture. In
I think you can cut
this sentence down contrast, I looked at two
academic articles. One
to size a bit also.
by Jennifer Aubrey and
For instance, you
wrote "an
Siobhan Smith called
academic article"
Development and
and "written by"
Validation of the
twice each.
Endorsement of the
Hookup Culture Index
from The Society for the
Scientific Study of
Sexuality, as well one by
Karen D. Arnold called
College Student
Development and the
Hookup Culture, in the
field of developmental
studies.

This helped my
paper flow better
by taking out a lot
of unnecessary
information.

A combination of
the articles organization,
as well as the authors
conventions and moves
are what make these
articles different and
particular to their field.
These aspects allow each
article to accomplish
something different, such
as informing readers or
promoting change.

I'm not totally sure

what you're
arguing here.

This made my
argument much
more clear and
focused.

What about their

organization?
What about the
conventions? What
about the moves?
What's different
about them, and
why does that
matter?

I narrowed down my
thesis and focused on
how the organization,
convention, and moves
relate to the audience,
and then how the
audience relates to why
my argument matters.
The organization,
conventions, and moves
of each article give the
articles a different level of
formality, and therefore
allow them to reach out to
different audiences. The
articles each accomplish
something different for
their intended audiences,
such as informing them
or promoting change
within them.

Rather than to
inform readers in a logical
way, the intentions of this
article seem to be to unite
and persuade the young
adult generation with
some general thoughts
that this author has.
In contrast to this
method of organization is
the sexuality studys
approach.

(first paragraph
commentary)
Based on your
topic sentence, I
was expecting to
read about the
organization
across all 3
articles -- however,
this paragraph is
only devoted to
The Odyssey.

I made the transition

between paragraphs
smoother.
The intentions of
this article seem to be
to unite and persuade
the young adult
generation with some
general thoughts that
this author has, rather
than informing the
readers, as the
(second paragraph scholarly articles do.
commentary)
The scholarly
In contrast how?
articles take on an
Also, I think you
might want to inject academic organization
some punctuation. that gives knowledge to
the reader in a logical
way.

I made this
change so that I
could keep the
two paragraphs
separate and
avoid a huge
page-long
paragraph. The
transition also
helped with flow.

In order to make
the information from the
complicated study readerfriendly, it is necessary for
the article to present the
data in this conventionally
social-science way. This
organization gives the
impression that the article
is intending to inform
those who are reading it
in the most efficient way
possible.

How, why?

I elaborated on how and

why the organization
gives the impression of
informing the readers.
This conventional
social-science
organization makes the
complicated study seem
reader-friendly, which
gives the impression that
the article is intending to
efficiently inform its
readers. Since the
IMRAD form is common
in many fields, the
intended audience is
familiar with it and will
more easily maneuver
through and absorb the
information that they
read.

This clarifies my
analysis of the
organization that
appears in the
first mentioned
scholarly article.

This is about as
in-depth as the authors
reasoning goes to explain
the current lack of dating
she and others
experience. She uses a
hunch that she has to
explain behavior she

I like how you're

providing some
follow-up analysis,
but I'm wondering:
how, exactly, does
this relate back to
your argumemt???

I switched the order of

the sentence clauses and
changed the punctuation.
This is about as indepth as the authors
reasoning goes to explain
the current lack of dating
she and others

These changes
made it more
clear how my
thoughts flowed
and how this
related to the
informality of the
article, that leads

I'm not saying that

observes, rather than

using facts or other
sources to support her
claim.

it doesn't, but if you

think it does, I think
you might need to
make that
connection more
clearly.

experience; rather than

using facts or other
sources to support her
claim, she uses a hunch
that she has to explain
behavior she observes.

to a lessacademically
based audience.

I took out information that

did not relate to my
thesis.
These are measured
with questions that
address each of the
aspects on a fivepoint scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree).
These conventions are
more academic, but
still similar to the
conventions in the
developmental article,
which contained
conceptual definitions
and secondary
sources for data.

This change
made my article
more focused
and supportive of
my thesis.

Remember (and I
know you know
this, I'm just
providing a
reminder): I don't
know what's going
on in that big brain
of yours, so it's
your job (as the
writer) to guide
readers like me as
carefully as
possible.
It always comes
back to your
argument -argument,
argument,
argument. (At least
for argumentative
papers!)

These are
measured with questions
that address each of the
aspects on a five-point
scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The data in this
article appeals to the
readers logos, their
intellectual side, by using
logic and reason to
support the argument.
This resultantly creates
ethoscredibility of the
rhetorwhich makes
readers more likely to be
believe and listen to the
article (Carroll, 52). These
conventions are more
academic, but still similar
to conventions in the
developmental article,

Is this a central
part of your
argument? (about
logos and ethos)

which contained
conceptual definitions and
secondary sources for
data.
By using the word
can, the researcher is
giving the argument room
for improvement and
acknowledging that the
research is not perfect.

Great observation,
and for sure,
agreed -- but I'm
wondering: what
does this ultimately
suggest? What
insights does this
provide into how
these researchers
approach
understanding
hookup culture (or,
more broadly, the
construction of
knowledge?)?

I elaborated on why the

hedged bet is important.
By using the word can,
the researcher is giving
the argument room for
improvement, ultimately
showing that he/she is
knowledgeable, yet openminded to new findings.

This reveals how

a hedged bet
shows something
about the author
and intentions of
the article, rather
than just pointing
out that a hedged
bet exists.

All of these moves

are vital in establishing
credibility within the
source, which aids in how
seriously this source is
taken. If people take the
sources seriously, it
affects how they are
received and if they
ultimately do their job to
inform people or change
the way that people are
behaving.

I'm noticing that

this is a recurring
thread in your
paper. Whenever
you can identify
them, ask yourself
if it's worth giving it
a "promotion" by
including it more
explicitly into your
thesis?

I took out the mention of

credibility.
All of these moves
are important in order
for the source to be
taken seriously. If
people respect the
source, it affects how
the article is received
and if it ultimately
does its job to inform
people or change the
way that people are
behaving.

This allowed my
article to be more
focused on
supporting my
thesis. Credibility
did not appear in
my thesis and I
thought I could
prove my point
without
mentioning it.