Blog Post 12.5, Editorial Report 12a

As with the last project I did, I put off finishing my works cited until during the editing process. In the Rough Cut, I simply had the title for the section:

            Selection From Rough Cut:

Works Cited:

During this week, I filled in the section with the sources that I gleaned information from.

Re-Edited Selection:

Works Cited:

ABC (Australia) News. “Fracking Fact-Finding Trip…” Australian Broadcasting Corporation. June 28th, 2015. Web. April 3rd, 2016.

BBC News. “Fracking: The Pros and Cons of Extracting Shale Gas”. The BBC. June 23rd, 2015. Web. April 2nd, 2016.

BBC News. “What Is Fracking and Why Is It Controversial?”. The BBC. December 16th, 2015. Web. April 2nd, 2016.

Carluccio, Tracy. “Fracking Is Destroying Our Groundwater”. U.S.News. November 28th, 2011.  Web. April 2nd, 2016.

Egan, Matt. “Fracking Fallout”. CNN Money. March 29th, 2016. Web. April 3rd, 2016.

Egan, Matt. “Fracking Now Fuels Half of U.S Output”. CNN Money. March 24th, 2016. Web. April 3rd, 2016.

Hinchey, Maurice (D-NY). “Fracking Industry Needs to Follow Laws, Too”. U.S.News. November 28th, 2011. Web. April 2nd, 2016.

Kiger, Patrick J. “Green Fracking? 5 Technologies for Cleaner Shale Energy”. National Geographic Magazine. March 21st, 2014. Web. April 3rd, 2016.

Magill, Bobby. “Water Use Rises as Fracking Expands”. Scientific American. July 1st, 2015. Web. April 3rd, 2016.

Nikolewski, Rob. “Can ‘Waterless Fracking’ in New York Sidestep Cuomo’s Ban?”. Fox News. October 12th, 2015. Web. April 2nd, 2016.

*Nikolewski, Rob. “Can ‘Waterless Fracking’ in New York Sidestep Cuomo’s Ban?”. Watchdog. October 12th, 2015. Web. April 2nd, 2016.

Swift, Art. “Americans Split on Support for Fracking in Oil, Natural Gas”. Gallup. March 23rd, 2015. Web. April 4th, 2016.

Waldron, Patricia. “In Search Of Greener Fracking For Natural Gas”. Inside Science. July 16th, 2014. Web. April 3rd, 2016.

*This source contributed to the Fox News article.

• How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

The content did not change much but my credibility for the paper increased significantly. A works cited is absolutely critical for a paper to be backed up and trustworthy.

• How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

The form of my paper changed significantly. Rather than being an unbacked, unsourced paper (A serious offense!), my paper now has sources to back up the claims made within.