REVISION MATRIX

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

How this
change impacts
my paper:

psychologist,
anthropologist, and
athletes

You're missing a chance

for parallelism here by
making each of them
either plural nouns OR
singular nouns.

I was a little confused

by what this comment
meant exactly so I
change it to
psychologist,
anthropologist, and the
athletic world

I really did not

understand this
comment, but I
think I might
have used the
wrong noun for
each so I
reworded the
last listing to see
if it flow better

biological thing others

might

My advice: steer clear of

things in academic
writing (maybe even all
writing!). Its suuuuuuper
vague. Academic writing
requires precision and
specificitybe direct and
tell me exactly what
youre talking about.

biological attribute
others might

I did this on my
last paper, I put
things instead
of just being
straight forward
with what I was
trying to say. I
tried to avoid
that this time
and mention
exactly what I
am going to
speak upon
instead of
saying things.

I will be using an
article called
Answers to Your
Questions about
Same-Sex Marriage
published by a
psychological website

Cassy, you're using "I will

be using/looking at" 3
times in this sentence. I
think you could save
some space/words -- and
time, for your reader -- if
you just use it once.

I will be using an
article called Answers
to Your Questions
about Same-Sex
Marriage published by
a psychological website
called (American

I completely
changed the
sentence to
make sure it was
not too
repetitive and it
flowed a little

Whats the connection

between these two
sentences? How do these
ideas connect?

called (American
Psychological
Association) , I will
also be looking at an
anthropologist point of
view through an
article called Cultural
Anthropology/
Marriage,
Reproduction and
Kinship published by
(Wiki Books), and
finally I will be
looking at how gay
marriage

Get that stem in there

once: "I will be looking at"
and then apply it to A, B,
and C. Your reader
should be able to tell that
you're using "I will be
looking at" for each one
when you use parallelism
and separate each item in
the series by commas.

Psychological
Association) , a
anthropologist point of
view through an article
called Cultural
Anthropology/
Marriage,
Reproduction and
Kinship published by
(Wiki Books), and
finally looking at how
gay marriage is viewed
in the sporting world

better.

I will be focusing on
some rhetorical
features and
conventions like
audience, tone, style
of the paper (word
choice and structure),
as well as certain
language used in
general and how that
comes across.

I'd like to know more

about each of these -which rhetorical features?
What about the
conventions within this
genre will you be
emphasizing? And what
about moves?

I will be focusing on
some rhetorical
features like; audience,
tone, conventions,
authors moves, style
of the paper (word
choice and structure),
as well as certain
language used in
general and how that
comes across to get the
different views on gay
marriage from all three
articles and how each
author approaches the
situation differently.

I was not
specific at all
the first time
around so this
time I went
ahead and stated
exactly why I
was looking at
each rhetorical
feature and why
it was important
for my overall
essay.

This is allowing the

readers to be
challenged because of
unexpected facts being
thrown at them as
soon as they open the
readings.

What do you mean by

"this" here? I think it'd
help to get in the habit of
including a noun after
this/these to let your
reader know exactly what
you're referring to.

These results are

allowing the readers to
be challenged because
of unexpected facts
being thrown at them
as soon as they open
the readings.

Again, my word
choice was not
the best! SO I
reworded what I
could to make it
more
meaningful

The subtitles allows

What are the subtitles?

The subtitles allows

I listed a few

The introductory
paragraph is so crucial
*for readers* because it
provides them with the
expectations for your
whole piece. The more
direction you give me, the
more focused *my
reading* will be --- and
the more I'll be able to
take away from your
piece.

each person to go
directly to the
evidence they are
looking for and
directly connect with
it without having to
read the entire article

Bringing in some textual

evidence/support -- along
with how/why it helps to
explain your argument -could really help me
make more sense of this
here.

each person to go
directly to the evidence
they are looking for
and directly connect
with it without having
to read the entire
article. Some subtitles
are, do same sex
couples make good
parents, or are same
sex marriages different
from heterosexual
marriages, this makes
it easier for the
audience to find
exactly what the focus
will be in each section
of the reading

examples of the
subtitles this
website had so
the readers had
textual evidence
about what I
was talking
about

The author states,

Scientists have found
that the psychological
and social aspects of
committed
relationships between
same-sex
partners largely
resemble those of
heterosexual
partnerships (APA).
The author uses
largely to emphasize
his statement and
where he stands with
this certain subject
within the matter.

Take another look at this

here -- I think by "largely"
he just means that it
*significantly* resembles.
(i.e., they have a lot in
common with)

The author also

uses vivid/concrete
words to prove their
point and make a mark
on what side they stand
on since they are
providing evidence for
both audiences. The
author states, Like
heterosexuals, many
lesbian, gay and
bisexual people want to
form stable, longlasting relationships
and many of them do.
In fact, researchers
have found that the
majority of lesbian, and
gay, adults are in
committed
relationships and many
couples have been
together 10 or more
years(APA). This
observation allows the
readers to see how the

I changed my
evidence
because I
realized I
misinterpreted
the first one so I
decided to go
back and pick a
stronger base
evidence so that
I was able to
state what I was
really trying to
state and prove.

author is taking a more

positive turn on the
evidence they provide
so that we can get a
feel of where they are
coming from.

The author also uses

this tone repetitively,
when talking about
this research done in
another country

OK, so is this whole

paragraph about tone? If
so, I think you might want
to preview this in your
topic sentence. That gives
your reader an overview
of what's coming up -that way, they can
anticipate what to expect.

The author uses hedged

language and a
sarcastic type of tone to
point out the different
ideologies on gay
marriage depending on
who is speaking upon
it.

My paragraph
did not really
have a topic
sentence so I
made sure to put
what my
paragraph was
going to be
about so that my
reader was not
lost throughout
it

The reader does this to

show the audience
both argument and
keep his word out of
it.

I'm not sure what you

mean here.

The reader does this to

show the audience both
arguments and how
each individual is
going about it.

I was confused
with the
sentence myself
so I completely
took it out and
restated what I
was really trying
to say

This article is based on

textual evidence solely
so the author has no
opinion in the matter.
After this we

OK, so the evidence

"speaks for itself"? Is this
similar or dissimilar from
the other pieces? And....
so what? Does that
relate back to your main
argument in some way?

This article is based on

textual evidence solely
so the author has no
opinion in the matter.
This is dissimilar to the
scholarly articles
because for the most
part we knew were the
other two authors
stood. Their opinion
was not mentioned in
the text but we can
very much tell what
their thoughts were in

I was a bit too

vague the first
time around so I
expanded more
on what I meant
and gave
evidence about
what I was
trying to say

regards to gay marriage

by the way they spoke
about the subject and
the data they presented
in their article.