Editorial Report 12B

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 first body 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, the only change I made content wise was to swap the original timeline for the F-35 for a different timeline on the same topic, one that is cleaner looking and easily cited from the Lockheed Martin site. This helped appeal to the logos of the essay, by preparing a well laid out and organized project, which appeals to the reader.
   
   
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. Especially in the body paragraph, this is essential in proving that my project actually has real support and is a well developed idea created by me, the author.
   
   
   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 first body paragraph.  
   Re-edited Section
   Here is a link to my revised section of my first body paragraph.