I think the most significant thing that I took away from your comments was that my paper didn’t really find itself until the end. I felt and agreed with the note that in my intro paragraph I asked some big questions which I never fully addressed and which didn’t directly relate to each other. For example, “What happens when a map becomes outdated?” and “How does a map lose its worth?”. I think that this is representative of my process when it came to writing the paper. Rather than going into detail about specific lines I would have rewritten I feel that it is more valuable for me to address my writing process. My paper only went through two drafts. The first draft that I submitted was just over a page long and was about a different map. This short draft made it very difficult to get effective peer feedback although (Viet and Lindsey were helpful and did a great job with what I gave them). I was then struck by a new idea and started fresh. I whipped out a draft, read it over, and ran it through spellcheck a couple times and sent it in. I think that this also shows why I had trouble with some technical things such as run on sentences and inconsistency with citation. I know that my process is not a great one and while working at the last minute does provide me with a lot of motivation it also gives me a lot of stress and leads to a more rushed final product. This was evident to me in the feedback I observed and I felt that it warranted a deeper exploration in this response.