What was the Literature Review about?
The objective of this essay is to “set up the ‘conversation’ that scholars are having about the field of research” that I’ve chosen to study. This literature review I wrote was mainly a summary and analysis of the social intelligence of horses. For the most part, this essay focuses on the affinity (or lack thereof) that horses can have for one another, and how this forms a social web of sorts. The basis of my analysis of the equine social order was scholarly papers written within the last few decades on this topic precisely. If you’d like to read the full paper, you can do so here.
[1] - Creating a Final Call to Action
As my paper was drawing to a close, I noticed that this paragraph was lacking the important evidence necessary to assert my statements. I prioritized including this revision in my paper because a non-evidence based assertion in the scientific literary world is grounds for rejection and revision, especially when the information posed is crucial to the issue being discussed. Additionally, this revision falls under the “Source Use and Integration” portion of the rubric, since this revision includes a new source that was not present prior to this revision.
[2] - Cleaning up the Citations
This revision falls under the “Documentation” portion of the rubric. Accurate documentation is highly important in the literary world, since factual assertions require tangible evidence, and the documentation provides that. Essentially, in this revision, I made an effort to format my paper in MLA style. I changed the paper so that the citations included the author’s last name, and were in a proper position in the sentence according to the guidelines.
[3] - Cutting Down on Filler
In this revision, I focused on removing filler words from the paper, such that each sentence and word conveyed specific, relevant information. As such, this revision falls under the “Clarity, Sentence Structure, & Readability” portion of the rubric. A concise, readable paper is surely more valuable to scholars in the field than one that is lengthy, hard to understand, and full of unnecessary detail, so I prioritized this revision.
What was the Advocacy Project about?
The objective of this essay is to build on the research that I did prior in the literature review by discussing human injustice towards my animal of choice: equines. This advocacy paper that I wrote was mainly a summary and argument against the mistreatment of equines by the Bureau of Land Management. If you’d like to read the full paper, you can do so here.
[1] - Backing up Assertions
Having written my first couple of drafts of the paper, I noticed to much surprise that there were many leaps in logic in several paragraphs. To me, they seemed fine, but I realized that not all of my readers will have the same knowledge as I do, so I added “(citation needed)” where I saw fit. This revision was essentially me plugging the holes in the boat, so to speak. I found where citations were needed, did a little digging, and plugged the hole right back up.
[2] - Major Restructuring + Multi-modal
In the first few drafts of the paper, I struggled to find an appropriate place to put my multimodal element. I knew that the element was key to my argument, as it makes a great point as to how the Bureau of Land Management can more than afford the solutions that I am proposing to protect the endangered wild equines. It struck me that I had a run-on paragraph, so I simply bisected it near the end, glued on the element, and added a little bit more reasoning behind the inclusion of the element. Overall, this revision definitely helped keep the pace of the paper to speed, and helped reinforce my argument.
[3] - Adding a Conclusion
Given that my paper ends on a cliffhanger, with the broad claim that petitioning is a helpful form of advocacy, I deemed it necessary to add a conclusion. As such, I added a header, and got to writing. This revision ultimately, while mainly creative and not revisionary, helped add an endcap to my writing on the paper as a whole. Without the conclusion, I feel like the readers would have been left to say, “so what?” I answer this question in the paragraph, and leave the paper to stand for itself.
