For my second paper, the revision process I used was one of great time and depth within. The first thing that helped me a lot with the revision process was the peer edits from my two group members in class. They were able to point out glaring errors that I was unable to see during my first runthrough of the paper. Then, after adjusting the parts of my paper that my peers suggested, I read through the paper again to see if there were any errors that I could see with another run through. When reading through it, I realized that there were some smaller errors that my peers didn’t see, and that I still needed to fix. I had to go back into the texts of Nair and Nair and Haas and had to really work on making sure that my paper had the most accurate and detailed information. In addition to this, I had to edit the opinions that I used in my writing that had changed from the time that I started. As with most other english work this year, I also had to make sure that James Gee was a feature in my paper. His work had to be included better, and so I updated what I said for him too. To conclude, I had to change a lot of my paper after the first draft, but it was all for the best.
Chief said this was it
