Revision

Matrix
Text from my
initial WP
submission:
(a phrase, sentence,
paragraph, idea,
move, punctuation,
piece of evidence,
etc.)

An observation or
question I received
from De Piero or a
classmate:

The change(s) I
made to what I
initially wrote: (ie,
the change[s] I made
to column 1)

How this change

impacts my paper:

The CBS Sports source

doesn't seem to be
toooo much different
from the personalize
NHL sub-sites.

As a reader, if you
have something to
say about the game
the NHL sub sites are
not for you. On the
other hand, the CBS
Sports and SB Nation
blog both allow space
for commentary
both for conflicting
ideas between
opposing teams fans,
and for conversation
amongst like teams
fans.

I tried to follow the

suggestion in your
comment to try to
try to find another
convention to
analyze between the
sources. This helped
to move the focus of
my paper to
important (and
significant)
differences rather
than surface level
ones.

Kunianski, open-ended
question for you, just to
get you thinking: Im
wondering if your
paper would benefit
from re-structuring the
organization.

I ended up
restructuring my
paper to be divided
into conventions,
rather than divided
into sources.

I think that this

change was the
most important that
I made within the
revisions for both of
my papers.
Everything in my
paper flows much
more swiftly from
one topic to the next
after restructuring
my paper.

Id like to see you

integrate the course
readings a lot more
throughout your whole
paper. Use their ideas
as springboards for
what youre

Savant syndrome
must not always be
viewed from a logos
lens, appealing to an
audiences
intellectual sidea
pop culture sources
can examine the same

Not only does my

paper now meet the
initial prompts
requirements, but it
also is stronger due
to added evidence. I
was able to find the
right pieces of

Is there anything else

going on that could
analyze?

seeing/analyzing within
these sources.

Considering three
sources from
different genres and
disciplines, it
becomes evident that
the overall
effectiveness of a
piece is the
composition of its
presence of
established
conventions, its
usage of moves
made by the author
which lend
themselves to the
pieces purpose, and
its target audience.

More specificity here

will help me read your
work with more
focus/purpose. What
conventions? what
moves? What
purpose(s)?

For the sake of

clarity, Savant
Syndrome: Realities,
Myths and
Misconceptions will
be referred to as the
first paper, and A
Calendar Savant with
Episodic Memory

However, I don't think

"1st" and "2nd paper"
will be too helpful for a
reader (at least not me)
b/c it could get pretty
confusing trying to
remember which is
which. Can you think

topic through a
pathos lens,
appealing to an
audiences emotional
side (Carroll 52-53).
I tried to use the
course readings
throughout the
entirety of my paper,
as opposed to having
a large concentration
of them at the end.
The overall
effectiveness of an
article is determined
by its ability to meet
its audiences
expectations
specifically, this
entails including
conventions of the
genre, such as
statistical data in
experimental research
publications and
making specific
moves to accomplish
the pieces intended
purpose, such as
including content
from previous studies
to clarify that the
research presented is
building on or filling
the gaps of others
findings.
Within the relatively
broad genre of
scholarly publications
exist more specific
genres, such as
descriptive research
papers and
experimental research

evidence from our

course readings to
incorporate them
into my papers
rather than
previously when
they almost seemed
to be interjecting.

As you said in your

comment, the more
you know from the
beginning of my
paper, the clearer
the purpose of the
rest of the paper
will be. I tried to get
more specific in my
thesis and work at
tailoring it to be
distinct for my topic
and paper.

You were
completely right
with this. Even
writing my paper
initially I knew that
there had to be a
better way to phrase
what I was trying to
say, but it just was

Impairments will be
referred to as the
second paper.

The repetitive
structure used in this
section of the paper
is the move. The
second paper
chooses to name the
person of study
Patient AC596 in
order to conceal the
identity of the
individual. This
provides the paper
with clarity by
verbalizing to the
audience that the
entire study is done
with the same
individual, patient
AC596.

of another way to
shorten them?

papers.

not coming to me. I

figured out a key
difference between
the two scholarly
articlesan
experimental versus
a descriptive
paperand went
with that distinction
as a way to refer to
the two papers more
concisely.

This comment is in
reference to the whole
paragraph:
When I see thiseven
before I start reading
I think, Ahhhhhhh!
Attack of the page-long
paragraph!

I pulled out of one

paragraph several
different points that I
was trying to make
and from there split
these megaparagraphs into
multiple, smaller and
more manageable,
paragraphs.
While certain
conventions are
somewhat expected
to be included in the
context of specific
genre, a writer has
the freedom to make
moves a writer
makes can help him
accomplish the goal
of his publication.

It makes my paper
much more
digestible for
readers. The pagelong paragraphs are
simply
overwhelming, and
for that reason alone
they needed to go.

Is it worth breaking up
this big "moves
paragraph" into
multiple paragraphs
which each analyze
different kinds of
moves?

This, however, can

What was it? I'd like to
be explained by the
know a lot more about
fact that the
neuroscience paper is

Moves do not always

have to be related to
the authors choice of
diction, but rather
may be concerned
with the structure of
the paper.
This, however, can be
explained by the fact
that the neuroscience
paper is the only one

I chose to divide
moves into two
major categories
those related to
content and those
related to
structure/formatting.
I felt like this
change made my
essay less
overwhelming to
readers (which was
another comment
that was made), as
well as added
clarity.

I worked to
incorporate more of
the sources findings
into my essay both

the only one of the

three which includes
experimental data.

"what went down" in

this piece.

of the three which

includes experimental
data concluding that a
savants ability to
correctly determine
the day of the week a
specific date landed
on or the next month
or year that a specific
date would occur
well exceeded the
accuracy due to
chance.

to strengthen my
argument and to add
a certain level of
interest to my paper.
My topic was
extremely
interesting and thus
I think my paper is
much more
interesting by
discussing what my
sources found in
further depth.

As previously
mentioned, one of
the conventions of
scholarly articles is
the usage of others
research. This factor
draws on the idea of
ethos which, as
Carroll defines in her
publication Steps
toward Rhetorical
Analysis, refers to
the credibility of the
rhetor (Carroll 54).

They used prior

scholars' work to build
their own credibility,
sure, but how did this
prior research help
them build their own
research?

For example, in his

introduction Treffert
explains the
reasoning behind the
creation of his paper
This paper sorts out
realities from myths
and misconceptions
about both savant
syndrome and autism
spectrum disorders
(ASD) that have
developed through
the years (Treffert
564). Past studies not
only allows an
individual to build on
what has been found,
or to explore research
gaps, but they also
allow researchers to
update perhaps
outdated or now
irrelevant
information.

Previously, I had
not linked this
statement to any
contextual evidence
from within my
sources, which
significantly
weakened my claim.
However, relating
this point to my
sources fixed that
issue.

In order to maintain
readers loyalty,
recaps must be
written in a way that
caters to the
appropriate
audiencehow this

What I'd like you to do

now is to find a way to
make this more
specific. What's
similar? What's
different? For
what/which audience?

In order to maintain
readers loyalty,
recaps must be
written in a way that
caters to the
appropriate
audienceteam

I had an issue of
making my thesis
too general, which
then led to my
readers being
potentially confused
about what specific

is achieved is
analyzed in a
comparison of game
recaps from three
different sources.

If there is a goal, the

name and number of
that player are
recorded, as well as
one or two potential
other players
credited with an
assist. The penalty
summary states the
players name and
penalty received, as
well as special
notation if the
penalty was major
instead of minor.

Trefferts report was

published to the
Journal of Autism
& Developmental
Disorders and thus
fittingly falls into the
discipline of mental
illness, or on a
broader spectrum a
psychological illness.
Conventions, which
exist within every
genre, can help

What specific
preference and
conventions will you be inclination toward or
analyzing?
away from bias being
the major factors
how this is achieved
is analyzed in a
comparison of game
recaps from a teams
official website, a
national sporting
website, and a teamspecific blog.
This is solid
Laura Bolin Carroll,
information, but I'm
in her paper Steps
wondering (just a bit):
toward Rhetorical
why am I reading this? Analysis, points out,
How/why does this
As audiences we
directly relate back to
want to know the
your main argument?
facts of the matter,
and logos help
present these
(Carroll 52). Both the
NHL sub sites and
CBS Sports recaps
included extensive
statistics sections
more specifically, a
scoring summary, a
penalty summary,
goalie statistics, and
the three stars of the
game.
Transition issue: whats
the specific link
between sentence 1 and
sentence 2? Whatever
that is, considering
putting it into the start
of sentence 2. (At the
end of sentence 1 is
another option.)

Each of these
specialized genres
has conventions of
their own, as well as
some that overlap
across the entire
genre of scholarly
publications.
Conventions can help
signify to the reader
what genre he or she
is considering, such
as the inclusion of

argument I was
trying to make. I
worked at my thesis
to make my
argument as clear
and specific as
possible.

This is an example
of where the course
readings were
especially usefully
in backing up my
arguments. Why
was this information
necessary to
include? The course
reading by Carroll
answered that
question exactly.

I actually chose to
separate these two
sentences into two
different
paragraphs, which
allowed me to
individually expand
on each point. The
first sentence I
placed in a
paragraph that gave
somewhat of a brief
overview of my two

signify to the reader

what genre he or she
is considering.

statistical findings in
an experimental
paper.

scholarly article
sources, and
following this
introduction I
brought in the idea
of conventions.
Parts of my paper,
such as this one
especially, needed
clarityI tried to
make this one of the
main focuses of my
revisions.