In my Big Data paper, I definitely surpassed the “Thesaurus Philosophy of Writing.” I go farther in my revision process, digging deeper, and integrating sources into pre-established paragraphs. I used to be very big into rephrasing, and I did a little bit of that on this paper, but it was mostly with the overarching idea, which is somewhat necessary in order to keep the paper within frame. I think Sommers would recognize this and maybe call me out on it, but other than that, my revision process consisted of global and surface as well as ideological. On the Big Data paper, I got behind and got an extension. I used the majority of the time on the first draft finding a good and relevant source, leaning towards the longer side. Because of this, my rough draft was slightly underdeveloped in terms of length, but I was happy because I had a clear idea about the aper and about my use of the sources. This made the revision process consist of lot more writing, but I still went back and zeroed in on the fact that my second body paragraph had 2 of the same source in a row and nothing else. This was fixed with a quote and some analysis of David Krajicek’s source on my part. It’s a solid example of my changed mentality when revising now.
