Reflection on Project 3

Looking Back on Completed Project 3

In this blog entry, I will examine my Project 3 work now that it is over and done. In doing so, I will gain some insight for my final project into how I wrote my public argument and what my process was.

Profberger "Serval Looking Back" 27 July 2007 via wikipedia.org.
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Unported 3.0 License.

1. I wrote an extensive first draft, and only had slightly-different iterations of the project in subsequent drafts, but the primary changes I made from drafts to final, published product were focused on conventions, transitions, and evidence. As far as conventions went, I continually strove for making my article as similar as possible to real articles seen in my genre at slate.com's Future Tense. However, most of my revising effort went into providing more transitions to improve the flow of my argument ("Thus" and other simple transitional phrases) and also into providing more evidence to increase my amount of hyperlinks to support my argument and give a sense of credibility (ex. citing Miku as evidence in my final draft).

2. Honestly, I left my global structure and thesis almost - if not entirely - intact. My revisions were mostly focused on conventions and more micro-level improvements.

3. What motivated me to make changes to improve my transitions and evidence was mostly a reminder that my piece was very much an open-thought opinion article that is supported by mentions of facts and other sources. Thus, I ensured to provide ample transitions to leave no room for confusion as I moved from thought to thought, and I also sought new pieces of evidence that I could hyperlink for my readers to explore to find more material related to how I developed my opinions.

4. I think that the conventions, transitions, and evidence greatly improve my credibility as an author because they exhibit my deliberate assembly of my article that fits in a respected genre, and because the evidence specifically shows my awareness of the controversy and related subjects.

5. I think that the conventions will help my article fit better on slate.com, because they are conventions of the genre of articles in Future Tense. Additionally, having more transitions and evidence allows my audience to be broader and possibly less versed in the AI controversy because the evidence provides them with necessary information and the transitions guide them through my argument.

6. As I've discussed in great detail, I included more transitional phrases between my short paragraphs to ease the flow of my very pointed and declarative paragraphs.

7. I think that making my ideas flow together more easily and making my evidence substantive will let my audience reach my meaning much more readily and without much strain - as I think is necessary for an article in my genre, as disruptions of flow can compromise the logical, contemplative structure of the piece.

8. As I said above, I paid particular attention to conventions. While I met the formatting conventions of my genre in my first draft well and revised only to adjust them, I did reconsider (often) the thought-guided style of articles in my genre and thus had to focus on improving the flow of my writing to ensure that that style was not compromised.

9. I think that reflecting on what I focused on in revision for this project actually shows that, in drafting stages, I try my best to reach the best global state for my writing, and let more micro-level adjustments be made later on in the drafting process. I think that this will be a key point in analyzing myself as a writer in the next project!