In order to have a successful revision on a paper, it must be critically observed from a higher academic perspective. Grammar and content are the two bigger factors that should be analyzed thoroughly. When revising my paper, I noticed the amount of grammatical errors. I had immense amounts of run-on sentences as well as wrongly structured sentences. The content was consistent, but it could have definitely been improved with additional relevant information.
First, I revised my introduction. I noticed that I included detailed information that I should have not included in the introductory paragraph. Not to mention my very weak thesis. Instead of stating my thesis directly, I briefly described similarities between the two songs. A similarity between the two songs could have been introduced in one of the body paragraphs rather than confusing the reader with an overwhelming thesis. I also noticed that I made the mistake of inferring people knew my ideas and could somehow read my mind, which made me present ideas and not explain them in detail. I thought my audience would automatically support my claim of helping people considering suicide without actually giving them reasons to agree. Some people don't want to interfere or incommode people, and it would have made my paper more powerful if I provided the reader with ways of helping these people. The rhetorical analysis on the songs I talked about were mainly analyzed to make the reader feel sympathy for the ideologies of suicide. By providing the reasons why the authors wrote the songs, I intended to maybe connect some readers who might relate to the same situation. However, after reading the claims, I realized they were not as strong and catchy or attracting to the reader.
The language throughout my paper changed as I revised it. It had been a while since I read my essay, which made it easy to read as an outsider. Being able to read my paper from another perspective, even though I am still the author, helped a lot to visibly identify the mistakes I made. I made sure to make the tone of my paper sound at least a bit more sophisticated than originally regardless of the first person point of view requirement.
When creating the website, I outlined the pages I wanted to include and filled them with relevant parts of my essay that I thought would be relevant to each page label. I wanted to have an "about" page so that the reader could begin to familiarize him/herself with the material that would be presented throughout the website. In the same page, I included videos of the songs so that the viewer could listen to the song and get a better idea of the tone. Then, I separated the songs in my essay and talked about them in their own page. This would give the audience (whom is intended to be anyone interested in suicidal awareness) a clear idea of the reason why the two are being compared. I also included an edited version of the connections between the two songs in order to show clearly their similarities.
First, I revised my introduction. I noticed that I included detailed information that I should have not included in the introductory paragraph. Not to mention my very weak thesis. Instead of stating my thesis directly, I briefly described similarities between the two songs. A similarity between the two songs could have been introduced in one of the body paragraphs rather than confusing the reader with an overwhelming thesis. I also noticed that I made the mistake of inferring people knew my ideas and could somehow read my mind, which made me present ideas and not explain them in detail. I thought my audience would automatically support my claim of helping people considering suicide without actually giving them reasons to agree. Some people don't want to interfere or incommode people, and it would have made my paper more powerful if I provided the reader with ways of helping these people. The rhetorical analysis on the songs I talked about were mainly analyzed to make the reader feel sympathy for the ideologies of suicide. By providing the reasons why the authors wrote the songs, I intended to maybe connect some readers who might relate to the same situation. However, after reading the claims, I realized they were not as strong and catchy or attracting to the reader.
The language throughout my paper changed as I revised it. It had been a while since I read my essay, which made it easy to read as an outsider. Being able to read my paper from another perspective, even though I am still the author, helped a lot to visibly identify the mistakes I made. I made sure to make the tone of my paper sound at least a bit more sophisticated than originally regardless of the first person point of view requirement.
When creating the website, I outlined the pages I wanted to include and filled them with relevant parts of my essay that I thought would be relevant to each page label. I wanted to have an "about" page so that the reader could begin to familiarize him/herself with the material that would be presented throughout the website. In the same page, I included videos of the songs so that the viewer could listen to the song and get a better idea of the tone. Then, I separated the songs in my essay and talked about them in their own page. This would give the audience (whom is intended to be anyone interested in suicidal awareness) a clear idea of the reason why the two are being compared. I also included an edited version of the connections between the two songs in order to show clearly their similarities.