1) Submit a revised copy of the first essay. Revise the essay by following the steps below.
A. Read the introductory paragraph.
a) Is there a clear topic sentence that draws your reader in the paper?
b) Is there a clear description of the dilemma surrounding whether Facebook contributes to the political divide based on one to two political profiles of your choice that are clearly defined?
c) Is media bias and the algorithm clearly defined based on an overview of the approaches you will use. Identify the chart/graph/visual/interview/or survey that will bring your argument home in your paper.
d) Are the criteria clearly defined based on your critique of Facebook’s political authenticity by assessing ads, posts, surveys/interviews circulating from the profile by creating codes and themes such as “uncertainty”, “expert opinion”, “fact”, etc. used to formulate clear stance in the thesis?
B. Read the Body Paragraphs.
a) Are there clear topic sentences that transition from the main idea in the plot of the last body paragraph?
b) Is each paragraph written in a chronological order of importance and is all content in the body paragraphs written in a chronological order of importance?
c) Are there specific claims in the first body paragraph with substantial evidence pertaining to only the methods in the first body paragraph, an introduction to the results in the second body paragraph, and an in-depth analysis of the results in the third body paragraph?
f) Are there direct citations from the chosen written from evidence found via the profiles and the chart/graph/visual and outside scholarly sources that verify your stance as follows: (para. or pg.) or (“title of the work”). Does the paper clear synthesize the work in after the claim? Does it introduce the author and title of the source, if known, when leading into the quote? If the source is quoted again, is the author’s name use to lead into the quote or paraphrase with a clear transition word such as “conveys”, “relays”, “states”?
g) Is there a balance between quotes and paraphrases when bringing in evidence to cite?
h) Are there clear transitions between ideas and scenes with specific detail after each main idea?
i) Does one point gradually lead into the next based on a chronological order of importance?
j) Do any paragraphs need to be moved to align the chronological order of importance or removed due to redundancy?
k) Are any sentences redundant and need to be removed?
l) Are there any ideas that are “dropped off” and need to be described in more detail?
m) Is the style written in such a way that it engages a scholarly audience?
n) Are the paragraphs well-structured with central points in the plot and illustrations written before a conclusion sentence? Are there are least five to six sentences per paragraph?
o) Are your analytical points based on clear themes tied to your stance on Facebook’s political authenticity?
C) Read the Conclusion Paragraph.
a) Does the conclusion explain how the illustrations in the body paragraphs proved your stance based on a variety of methods and tools used to find certain themes?
b) Does the paragraph explain how your research stands out from other scholars?
2) Write a six-sentence paragraph at the end of the revision explaining what was revised in the current essay. Address the points listed above. Bring in comments from peers and your instructor, among others. Explain what advice you took and why. Identify what points you revised based on your own discretion. What points did you removed and what points did you add, if any? The paragraph should have a clear topic sentence and claims based on the points of revision following the organization, details, and structure of the paragraphs in the paper. There should be a clear conclusion sentence summing up the differences between your first publish and your final publish. Failure to complete the paragraph will result in an automatic 50%.