The idea was simple: write an informative summary of educational issues in the United States. What I found challenging in project two, however, was the fact that we couldn't use the “I”. The second project felt more like a research paper where we could express our opinions, but instead, we had to use someone else's voice to convey our argument to our audience. Even though the information was given to me and all I had to do was paraphrase, I still found it difficult to use Tatum's information to argue my own. Reading and analysis played an important role in the process of writing my article. Repetitive reading and annotation of Tatum's work was frustrating, almost annoying, but I could not complain because after all it was from my annotations and understanding of his writing that I would compose my argument. As far as revisions and drafts go, I think project two is the best written of both of the projects I submitted. Having completed a paper peer review workshop really helped me improve my subsequent drafts for the second project. It also helped that the workshop was held right after the due date, because all the information was still fresh in my head. Unlike the first draft, where we revisited it almost a month later, it was more difficult to compose a better draft because I had to revisit the information needed to successfully write an improved draft.