Editorial Rebellion 12A

Any time an author does edits to a rough draft of project, it is always beneficial to look back at the original rough draft and question whether the changes were actually beneficial. Below are a few question that a reader may have about my edits on my introductory section of my QRG.

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
   - In the revised section, I  included a section dedicated to introducing myself, why I have some knowledge of the aerospace field, and what the purpose of the paper is. This is located below the introductory paragraph. I believe these together will allow me to have better ethos, declaring why I understand aerospace, which will add credibility to my argument. 
   
   
2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
   - The main form change I introduced to the introduction paragraph, is that I included citations to outside sources within the paragraphs, and also to the photos. The photos also had captions added to them, adding a description of the photo. Together, these will allow the audience to understand the photos better, allowing them to understand why they're included.  Also the sources will add credibility to my argument, by giving my arguments some outside reference to call on, providing factual data.
   
   
   You will have to download the files, Google Drive is having issue with my Microsoft Word documents.  
   Rough Cut
   Here is a link to my original rough draft section of my introduction.  
   Re-edited Section
   Here is a link to my revised section of my introduction.