Chapter 14 Comprehensive Self-Editing Checklist for Refining the Final Draft

·         Adherence to the Writing Process for Editing and Redrafting

Upon having my manuscript reviewed by my peers and incorporating suggestions within the material from what had been recommended previously by the professor as well, I did sit it aside for several days and then came back to it to review and make any additional changes needed. 

·         Importance or Significance of the Topic

My topic is important in that it affects all who may be involved with the institution directly or indirectly (topic is about safety on college campuses).  With the evolving wave of criminal activity from cyber-crimes to cyber bullying and sexting, there are new perspectives that come to the forefront.  This topic is appropriate for my field of study (Higher Educational Leadership) because safety is a core component for all to be aware of and leaders must have measures in place to assist in keeping the stake-holders safe while a part of the institution. 

·         Organization and Other Global Considerations

The review does include an introduction as well as a conclusion section and follows the criteria as listed in the instructions for completion of the assignment.

·         Effectiveness of the Introduction

Upon reading over the introduction, I was able to make sure that the content led to what the following information would discuss.  The introduction did not go into what the topic would not cover, but the initial literature review did mention previously how certain literature would not be used as a reference because of the specific topic ultimately selected to study. The relevancy of my point of view was included, in general terms (safety on college campuses),  and was expressed in the introduction.

·         Currency and Relevance of the Literature Cited

Some of the Articles included current and older articles due to the fact that the development of certain legislature was referred to and needed to show the dates of establishment and how situations resulted in various rules and laws to be established. In the initial review, I was able to show why some articles were stronger than others in terms of supporting the actual study that would be conducted.

·         Thoroughness and Accuracy of the Literature Reviewed

The coverage of my review is adequate and the only gaps in literature would be to the development of new crimes developing (not really a gap, just new additions).  I was able to lump the studies together through the literature map, which helped to make things easier to follow and sort through. Because of this method, there was a reduction of gaps throughout the literature.

·         Coherence and Flow of the Path of the Argument

Some of the studies reviewed correspond with my outline better than others due to the fact that a true dissertation would have to be narrowed more from what was currently reviewed. The paper does flow logically as it stays on task with the descriptive headers and subheadings.  This also helps for a smooth transitional flow from one area to another, which makes it coherent.

·         Effectiveness of the Conclusion

The conclusion does provide a closure for the reader and summarizes what the paper was about.  The argument was made reference to in the conclusion in a summary format.

·         Accuracy of Citations and the Reference List

I have checked and rechecked the manual and the online testing has aided as well as the instructors comments on previous papers.  I have checked to make sure the citations have been included and not omitted in the reference list and in the text.  I have also checked for spelling and accuracy throughout my paper and made updates accordingly.

·         Mechanics and Overall Accuracy of the Manuscript

I did reread the manuscript and performed a final spell check.  Numbers are on the pages and the manuscript is double-spaced, with my name included.

·         Appropriateness of Style and Language

The style was intact, however the headings needed to be adjusted to be consistent with the requirements. I used quotations, but they were not long and did have significance.  I avoided slang, contractions, and explained any acronyms used.  The peer review indicated that the paper was free of sexist language.

·         Grammatical Accuracy

I did make some updates to make sure the sentences were accurate and clearly stated with the intended purpose understood.  Punctuation and sentence structure was reviewed as well.

·         Additional Editing Steps for Non-Native English Speakers and Students With Serious Writing Difficulties

Subject verb agreement and the manuscript was reviewed , but most in this section was not applicable (Native-English Speaker).

·         Additional Guidelines Suggested by Your Instructor

Other suggestions made by the professor on the initial project that was turned in, regarding updating some of APA format, was updated accordingly.