WRITING 39C - ANIMAL SCIENCE
Literature Review
Revision Strategies
What is the Literature Review?
The Literature Review (LR) is an informational and analysis essay that contextualizes and summarizes three studies about our chosen species and one of the following topics: social behavior/structure, intelligence, or communication. By integrating recent and important studies, the LR serves as the foundation of information to transition into the discussions of philosophy between non-human animals and humans and discussions of the current issues revolving around the chosen species for the Advocacy Project/Essay (AP).
​
The following below will go more in depth of three revisions made to my original Literature Review draft.
Read the original LR draft here
Read the current revised LR integrated with the first part of the AP
Revision 1: Connecting the Headings
The first revision I made to my original draft was rewriting the headings between the three studies. My intent originally was mainly just have a sense of personal organization so I could more easily locate which body paragraphs indicated which study. However, I had received a comment that a) the headings needed to be reformatted (not capitalized or bolded) and that b) headings would not automatically create connections between the sources I had used.
Though I only intended the headings to be there strictly for organization purposes, I proceeded to revise them to have them also contribute to the writing's overall cohesiveness and transitions. My original headings were shorter and just the study's topic and instead changed to indicate its overall significance among the sources.
​
ORIGINAL HEADING ➣ REVISED HEADING
Killer Whale Mother-Calf Bonds ➣ Killer Whale Mother’s Role in the Calf’s Development and Socialization
Death and Social Structure ➣ How Death Unravels Social Structures
Revision 2: Summarizing and Paraphrasing
Next, one of the more major (and dire) revisions I had to make was to eliminate potential patch-writing evident in the draft. I think the obvious reason for the change is to simply avoid plagiarism. But at the same time, by doing so improves my LR's source use and integration. For these changes, I had to either paraphrase the original work or summarize what was said.
(Note: In the revision comparisons below, the yellow highlighted text on the left indicates the draft and on the right is the revised version highlighted in green.)
​
Revision 3: Simplifying Methods
Another revision needed to be made was simplifying the methodology used in the studies. Although I did explain teach study's methods well, the purpose of shortening and simplifying them was for the sake of easier source integration and for it to not lengthen the review too much so the overall work can later focus more on the AP's discussions rather than the LR's contents. In addition, it also eases the burden of not having to confuse the readers understanding of the studies with potentially confusing method explanations.
(Note: In the revision comparisons below, the yellow highlighted text on the left indicates the draft and on the right is the revised version highlighted in green.)
​
Advocacy Project
Revision Strategies
Revision 1: Touching Up on the Title
Typically with my writing habits, I tend to not give the title too much thought in the early stages of the writing due to the fact it could possibly change depending on the content. Things will be added, taken out, etc. With each draft, my title changed at least once and below will show the changes made. The title has a mix of purposes ranging from grabbing the readers' interest and being a signpost of the main idea of the work. Below is the evolution of my essays' titles.
​
DRAFT TITLE 1 ➣ DRAFT TITLE 2 ➣ FINAL TITLE
Sociality in Killer Whales ➣ Suffocating Social Killer Whales ➣ Orcas: Social Predators and Captive Killers
Revision 2: Adding Transition
The second revision I made was a minor change for the sake of transition and flow. The previous paragraph had ended with a quote from Jacques Cousteau and originally it felt a bit abrupt. To guide the reader back, I put a transition phrase to fix the structure a bit.
​
(Note: In the revision comparisons below, the yellow highlighted text on the left indicates the draft and on the right is the revised version highlighted in green.)
Revision 3: Condensing and Coherency
The last revision I will note is combining two paragraphs. Originally this section went into discussion of the use of social media for advocacy and was split into minor paragraphs. Instead, this was changed to combine them into one solid paragraph to keep it more coherent.
​
(Note: In the revision comparisons below, the yellow highlighted text on the left indicates the draft and on the right is the revised version highlighted in green.)
