Reflection (1)

       I have discovered my defects including incorrect uses of grammar, redundant words and sentences, imprecise narrations, etc. Moreover, I cannot choose a strongly persuasive annotation for my issue, thus I always write weakly for my position. Otherwise, I may write the redundant explanations to sentences, thus I repetitiously mention the same points twice, making my paper look more tedious and seem to have less important and repetitious ideas. Moreover, I don't find the annotations toward a specific direction, I always find them randomly. Therefore, I cannot make my annotations be more connected and continuous. My whole article is read scrappier in the end.

        In order to improve these drawbacks, first, I will think twice before using the words. I will use more resources to make my word choices more precise, or ask for others' help. Second, check the sentences and words again and again to avoid writing them supernumerarily and making mistakes in grammar. I should make these seemingly subtle problems occur less, and write it as perfectly as possible.

        The matters that I mention above are relative slight and unimportant problems for writing an expository paper. The most critical matter in the paper is annotation. All the annotations are supporters. We should choose it wisely, thus our article can be persuasive. My annotations are not perfect. The first annotation didn't have certain resource on it, I don’t know surely where it came from, and thus I couldn't cite it rightly. Also, it's not a strongly persuasive annotation because it also mentioned the opposite position of its view point. It stands both positive and negative position. Thus, next time when I choose annotation, I will take a more resourceful one, then I can easily find the source of it. Next, I will find clear annotations that support a specific concept, thus I will not find it not persuasive enough in the article.

        As for the second annotation, I found it later that it talked about several things that some of them are not convincing enough for people, even for me. Otherwise, the second annotation was posted in 1998, it's far from now, thus it might not have some updating information, concepts, and values, therefore I might not be able to use it as an explanation to the phenomenon nowadays. Therefore, how I can improve these flaws is to read it again and again, realizing what it really wants to infer us, persuading myself first, and then using it. Besides, I will also find a more recent article as annotation lest it has problems I mentioned.

                In the end, the most crucial mistake that I made in choosing annotations is that I cannot make the annotations connective. They seem separated to each other. Hence, next time when I am looking for the next annotations, I will think of the former annotations first, and make the following annotations connect to the previous annotations.

        I hope I can improve these faults in the following steps of writings, thus make my final research paper as perfect as possible!