Text from my initial

WP submission:
(a phrase, sentence,
paragraph, idea,
move, punctuation,
piece of evidence,
etc.)

An observation or
The change(s) I made
question I received from to what I initially
De Piero or a classmate: wrote: (ie, the
change[s] I made to
column 1)

How this
change
impacts my
paper:

Keiper follows by
further elaborating on
why there is such
confusion on
nanotechnology, then
digresses by
clarifying all the
confusion with the
illustration of
nanotechnology.
Finally, he finishes by
explaining how
unclear policy
allocated onto
nanotechnology are.
Centralized around
the understanding of
the sciences and
politics, Keiper felt it
was necessary to clear
up all the confusion
caused by the
sensationalistic
reporting and touch
on the politics
associated with
nanotech for the use
of his intended
audience.

I kinda feel like I'm

"swimming in it" right
now. Why am I reading
this information? What's
the information you're
providing doing for your
paper/argument?

I decided to
take these
sentences since
they were kind
of/mostly
summary. It
confused
readers and
made it look
like I was
stalling. My
paper was
really wordy so
simplification
would really be
helpful here.

Keiper follows by
further elaborating on
why there is such
confusion on
nanotechnology, then
digresses by clarifying
all the confusion with
the illustration of
nanotechnology.
Finally, he finishes by
explaining how
unclear policy
allocated onto
nanotechnology are.
Centralized around the
understanding of the
sciences and politics,
Keiper felt it was
necessary to clear up
all the confusion
caused by the
sensationalistic
reporting and touch
on the politics
associated with
nanotech for the use of
his intended audience.

Also, Keiper
undertakes the topic
of nanotechnology on
the superficial level

What do you mean here?

Break this down for me.

Also, Keiper
undertakes the topic of
nanotechnology on the
superficial level,
meaning he takes a
simplistic approach
while maintain
narrative

Fixed and
clarified what I
meant. Makes it
easier for the
reader to read
as well as
understand
what I meant.

Other than the belief

that nanotechnology
will drastically
change and
revolutionize the
world around us, it is
unclear if Keiper
supports or opposes
its establishment.

Is this deliberate? Why or

why not?

Other than the belief

that nanotechnology
will drastically change
and revolutionize the
world around us, it is
unclear if Keiper
supports or opposes its
establishment possibly
because he wants to
remain unbiased.

Clarified my
point. Allows
the reader to
understand
what im saying
and make the
connection
clear.

His prime goal is to

introduce the world to
the idea of attaining
immortality through
the utilization
nanotech. Loubriels
lack of expertise
suggests he is writing
for an audience who
has never heard of the
idea because of the
simple language and
quick introduction
used.

What are you basing this

claim off of? That he's
not an expert?

His prime goal is to

introduce the world to
the idea of attaining
immortality through
the utilization
nanotech. Loubriels
lack of expertise and
background in media
suggests he is writing
for an audience who
has never heard of the
idea because of the
simple language and
quick introduction
used.

Clarification
and shows what
im basing my
claim off of.