The differences between my first and final drafts of project 3 are distinct in many ways. My approach to revising and how I revised changed as much as the actual content of these drafts. Something that I really wanted to improve on in this project was building upon my thesis and turning it into a discussion topic. During this session of revision, I really focused on trying to relate to the reader and invite them in. I made my own moral senses about food clear as well, and ended the introduction with my thesis. Also in the introduction, I gave more context. I gave context to my entire essay at large by opening with what people consider and don’t consider about food, and I gave context to the essays I would be digging into by introducing and summarizing Wallace’s and Pollan’s essays. The advice my peers provided didn’t give me as much to think about during my revising process as compared to that of project 1. Looking back, although my peer review for project 2 had less advice and was more vague, I had a firmer knowledge of the basics of academic writing, especially revision. I think I developed much as a writer between project 1 and project 2. One example that I think shows my development in terms of global revision is transforming my introductions in drafts 1-3 of project 2 from narrow, unchallenging, and unengaging to the opposite. During this session of revision, I think I really demonstrated my improved ability to go back, look at the bigger picture, and substantially revise the content, organization, and clarity of my writing. In terms of local revision, I was advised by my peers to make my writing smoother by combining sentences. In addition, they recommended me to summarize/trim down quotes. An example of making my writing smoother is when I was quoting Wallace in the second paragraph, in which the introduction for the quote is in the same sentence. An example of me cutting down quotes is seen in the quote from Pollan about tail docking, in which I only kept the crucial details.
