MWA 1: My biggest takeaway from outside sources was how to punctuate and format my article. This was the first paper I have written that included album and song titles, and lyrics. The correct punctuation goes against everything I have learned about simple essay formatting. Although I did choose to include a few music videos and a small playlist, I shared just enough to entice readers to listen to the band on their own. Without samples, it could be easy for the audience to forget about the subject as soon as they finished the article.

MWA 2: I struggled at the beginning of the assignment because I was using UNM Libraries to research my sources. I found a couple that I could use, however, Animal Testing is not as documented as one might assume. I knew there were activist groups and animal lovers out there that had to have done some research. I resorted to Google and found multiple organizations, all creditable ones, that are studying alternatives. I decided to use a mixture of academic journals, periodicals, and webpages to create an evened annotated bibliography.

MWA 2: Composing a proposal on this subject was quite difficult, as there is no clear path to ending animal testing. The best approach was to keep the medical and legal jargon to a minimum, and appeal to the general public. The problem analysis and solutions were hard to separate in a manner that flowed well for the reader. However, I feel as if the proposal is strong in its entirety.

MWA 1: I started my writing process with a TON of research on the band Sleep Token. As a fan, I already had my own preconceived ideas about their music, yet I needed evidence to present to an audience. As mentioned in my review, nothing is definitively known about the band, so my only resources were from other fans online. After reading their reviews, and taking (too many) notes, I knew there were certain songs that needed addressing. I listened to them repeatedly, read their lyrics, and watched their music videos. After that, the paper was relatively easy to write. I only wrote one draft and returned to it throughout the week to revise. I changed some of my language and cut out the “fluff.” It was a pretty seamless process as I was enthusiastic about the subject.

MWA 2: Initially, I started with sources I did not end up utilizing. Either I found a better source, that covered more information, or I found that I was not going to use the information at all. After writing my first draft, I realized I included entirely too much information in my summaries. I still wanted to use the information, so I was able to add those facts into my evaluations. I felt it made for a balanced opinion on the source.

MWA 2: All the sources I used for this project were written in an academic tone. I read articles from law students, institutions, and researchers. The challenging part was deciphering exactly what was being said, and being able to present it in a way that could be easily understood. That took more research than I anticipated. Aside from the medical jargon, I still wanted to provoke emotion from the reader. I exercised what I learned in the Review Project and used strong descriptive words to describe the process of using animals as test subjects.

MWA 1: Balancing my voice along with the subject’s voice was simple. I was able to use the band’s own lyrics to convey their message to the audience. Being that everything is suggestive when it comes to the band, I never claimed to know exactly what the lyrics meant, only what could be perceived. The challenging part was figuring out how to incorporate the lyrics into a sentence that flowed well. Many of the lyrics are confusing and I had to put them simply, because I knew the audience was not going to take the time to listen to five entire albums.

MWA 3: I started this project with the preconceived idea that animal experimentation was unnecessary and cruel. However, I had no idea just how ineffective it is. When doing my research, I was shocked to learn that ninety-five percent of testing fails when it reaches human trials. For decades, we have been led to believe that animal testing is a needed evil for medical advances. This process has solidified my beliefs on the matter, and although I am not a scientist, nor can I change this myself, I feel as if I am educated enough to discuss it with people who can.

MWA 1: I got lucky with my first google search, which lead me to the review “THE LORE OF: Sleep Token,” by Harry A Eaton, on boolintunes.com. It was obvious the author had put a huge amount of time and effort into writing it. He explored every avenue and every little detail. Researching a subject with this much depth could have easily been discouraging without this man’s due diligence. Still, I found other articles online and did my own research on the band’s final album, Take Me Back To Eden. I listened to the album start to finish and read all the lyrics to form my own opinion, one that I did not see in any of the articles online. I ended the review stating that it is merely an idea, and nothing is absolute. My goal was for the reader to listen to the band and form their own opinion. 

MWA 3: My biggest take away was learning how to weigh certain sources within the proposal. When doing research, I had thought some sources would be much more useful. But throughout the process, the goal of my proposal changed, and I had to recognize that some information may be too specific for my intended audience. I chose to use them as secondary sources, only briefly summarizing what they said.

MWA 2: When researching the subject, I found more information than I wanted. Because my topic is so dark, I learned about awful things. Those things would have been quite easy to write about, however I had to really focus on representing the solutions rather than the problem. I also learned how to use sources that some people may not see as reliable. For example, I used PETA as a source. I recognized that they are, at times, extreme and biased, but their numbers do not lie.

MWA 3:  I was surprised to learn how brief a research proposal is intended to be. I was prepared to cite multiple facts and instead I ended up cutting a lot to get the point across quickly. I decided to use statistics as my primary source of information. It puts everything into perspective for the reader, and I was able to use it as a shock tactic, because the numbers are shocking.