Blog Post #4 - Rhetorical Analysis Reflection

A concern I had going into the peer revision was my ability to explain what my artifacts were and who their intended audience was, and after the peer revision, this is the part of my essay that I need to place the most emphasis on during revision. Throughout the paper I would reference certain artifacts without explaining to the reader where they came from or why they were made. This adds confusion and may even cause wonder as to whether the artifacts provided are relevant to the topic of the rhetorical analysis. This being said, I'm going to ensure that I explain each artifact and the intended audience before analyzing the rhetorical strategies presented by the stakeholder.

Another important piece of feedback I received regarded explaining audience but in a different light. Throughout the analysis it is difficult to tell who the intended audience of my stakeholder is. Since he is governor of California it could be seen as only the state, but he has also produced artifacts and made changes that have impacted the country as a whole. This being said, I need to explore further into who his direct audience is and be sure to detail that in my paper.

Those are the two major revisions that needed addressing and revising in my paper. Many of the other problems were minor and had to do with phrasing or the wording of sentences and should be easy fixes. While these may seem minor, they are mistakes that as the author of the paper I wouldn't notice, but others are able to point out and can end up being impactful on the meaning final of the analysis.