When it comes to revising an academic paper, revision is particularly important to me as I try to allocate as much time as possible to perfecting my work. I prefer to set aside short periods of time on different days leading up to the date of submission. By coming in with a clear mind each time I revise I am able to feel more confident about the work I am submitting and I am able to catch any grammatical, syntax or other errors.

     Elbow's criterion-based approach is the most useful to my writing. I feel this way because I usually focus on quality of the paper and if I have correctly followed the rubric of the instructor. I tend to focus on how I organized the paper, if my transitions between paragraphs are smooth, is my thesis clear and strong and does the evidence given support the thesis I've given etc. I also tend to spend a lot of time trying to choose the right words and trying not repeat certain words over and over again. This preference suggests that I take a very technical approach to writing. While I think that it is good to meet and even exceed expectations, I think at times this may come through as being too rigid and not showing enough of a creative voice in my work.

      I think this has influenced my writing process because I am understanding the benefits of reader-based criterion. In my own writing I am seeing how my paper is developed and what kind of proverbial journey it takes the reader on.

      Some of Elbow’s questions I am asking myself are:

Is it supported by logical reasoning?
Is there too much abstraction or generalization?
Tell which phrases struck out the most in the writing.
What do you like about this piece?

     After taking the above questions into consideration, I have drawn some conclusions about the critical review draft I submitted last week. I noticed that while I am making a logical connection to the article, the reasoning may not be as clear as I would like it to be. I will need to take the time to elaborate more on the “how?” and “why?” I am discussing it. There were not many generalizations made, but I feel there may be a bit of abstraction and need for more concrete language and not so theoretical. Phrases that stuck out in my writing were the first sentence and the thesis. I did feel like the first couple sentences which are generally used to draw readers’ attention, did in fact do so. I am still not completely satisfied with the wording of the thesis, I believe that it is clear that it is the thesis, but I am not yet pleased with the wording. I like that the piece begins strong by introducing the subject matter right away and also that it ends strong as well by concisely summarizing the thesis and body of the assignment.


    I will continue to use these questions as well as my own processes for self-revision in the coming weeks to finalize my critical review.