The peer review was one of the most helpful tools utilized while writing my paper on the Balbo Monument. Initially, I was concerned about the information I would be given by my partner and how I could actually help them with their own ideas, but my doubts were quickly dashed once the peer revising process began. When Mark first starting reading my paper the number of errors in the paper was insane. From run-on sentences to unnecessary historical background, my paper was truly a mess. The structure didn’t make any sense and didn’t uphold the argument of the paper. Here is Mark and I’s peer review session.
When I read my partner’s paper I was eager to learn how he formatted his paper and how I could learn from it. The hook was marvelous and the flow was fantastic, I was able to see a great example of how to set up my paper in an effective manner. I wanted to edit my paper so it would fit the same flow, but after reading the comments from Dr. Shermer and Ruby, I was able to see the differences in the event encompassing my paper versus my partner’s. My paper focuses on the timeline of fascism in Italian American communities which thrived under Mussolini’s dictatorship and his relationship with the Catholic church, whereas he focused on a single event that caused Mother Angelica to become a national phenomenon. Due to these differences, it was important that I looked at all criticisms in their own right to ensure my paper created an argument that could be substantially supported.
Now that I’m fully in the revising and editing phase of my research paper, I’m coming across more difficulties in narrowing down which information I can continue to utilize the “one point per paper” philosophy. I keep getting caught up in smaller details that bridge off into research holes with information that I can’t use in a beneficial way. After meeting with Dr. Shermer, I’ve been able to figure out a format that suits my research presentation and how to effectively establish support of my argument.