Similar to how I reviewed my peers papers I found myself only looking for grammar errors when revising my papers. I slowly with the help of guidelines began to look for bigger errors to fix in my papers. Although they may not be considered true errors since there was nothing truly incorrect with them. The reason they needed to be fixed was not because of if they were correct or not but rather because they could be so much more in terms of context. An example of this is trying to build off of an idea you already have. You build off of the idea because there is more to be said rather than being broad. Although it was not incorrect it wasn’t finished. I found myself revising for ideas that could be built off of. On top of that I also began looking for areas to add new paragraphs or finding areas where one paragraph would be better suited. Looking for more local changed such as grammar and spelling is still important but I find them to be minor compared to losing a perfect spot to build off of an idea and further understand the topic. One issue I encountered when revising my work was the cramming of information. I found myself putting too much information in one paragraph because I felt it flowed better together rather than apart. Despite the challenges I would like to think my revision process has changed for the better.
