Reflection on Project 3

1. What did you revise globally from one draft to another? Why? How do the changes that you made affect your argument, audience, and credibility as an author? My main revisions were global: I moved some paragraphs around to make the logic of the piece flow better. I also added two paragraphs about the San Carlos Apache's connection to Oak Flat once I decided that my purpose was to convince climbers to stand with the Apache. I think that adding in more information about the history of destruction of San Carlos sacred sites helped my argument gain strength because it highlighted the importance of the area and the need to join together with the San Carlos. I think that adding these sections increased my credibility because it showed that I have depth of knowledge on the subject its historical context. Although my audience isn't directly connected to the San Carlos Apache, and awareness of Native American struggles is part of our culture today. Whether you're a climber, a scientist, or a barista at a coffee shop it's likely that you're aware of the historical disadvantages that Native American groups face and that you care at at least a little bit.
2. What local revisions did you make? How did they improve clarity for your audience? Did you have to reconsider conventions of the genre? I didn't make a whole lot of local revisions to this piece. I read it over a few times to make sure there weren't any grammar errors, but I feel that it came out pretty well the first time around. I typically write using more words than necessary, and so my local revision process is mostly paring down and getting rid of clutter words. TNB columns typically have a conversational, narratice, informal style, so I didn't have to pare it down the way that I would for a lab report or a more formal essay. 
3. How does the process of reflection help you consider your identity as a writer? I've recently been writing in a lot of different styles. I've been blogging, and writing in different genres for this class, and I just finished a research grant proposal for money to investigate the potential of certain anthropogenic compounds in our finished compost. I've also been writing lab reports for soils. Switching between these different styles has been a little challenging for me, but I've realized how important audience and purpose are. When I write science stuff I just have to remember that the purpose is to convey objective information as clearly and concisely as possible. No flowery language, no more words than necessary. When I write something like the public argument about Oak Flat I have much more creative license to convey the information and employ rhetoric however I want to. I would like to develop both styles of writing so that I can be effective in both. 

Webb, Michaela "San Fran from Alcatraz" 2014