I usually try to go in depth with more types of global edits rather than simply writing local edits. My biggest point that I made in this peer review was to elaborate more on why you support art in science and backing up with more evidence by blending together Ma’s and Lehrer’s points. I also noted that it would be best to try and fit at least one if not two lines from Pinker in your paper because it’s important that you incorporate a different standpoint that you can argue against. If you simply use quotes and analyze the points from the authors that you agree with, then you aren’t achieving the full writing process of incorporating more than one outlook. I thought this person did a great job at making the paper clear and concise with every claim making sense to the overarching thesis along with the quotes, but at times, I found that there were some pieces missing such as deep analysis on the quotes which is what I mainly tried to address in my peer edits.

The biggest achievement for me of this learning outcome came from annotating essays from different authors. In the past, most of my comments on a paper from another person have been pretty basic such as spelling and grammatical issues rather than a more in depth approach that I’m trying to incorporate now with analyzing text line for line and looking for pieces to add to the paper along with pieces to take away. Most of my comments have a tendency of being “add ons” to the paper while comments from peers of mine in the past have been to “delete parts” of the paper. My approach to making a first draft has typically been to overwrite while my peers seem to underwrite which is why I’ve tried recommending ways to add more to the paper.