When revising my first paper, I first did a read through it and edited any big things that stood out to me. After I did that I spent time reading each paragraph one by one, and paid close attention to the evidence I incorporated and tried to make them more specific and portray them more effectively. One example is the change I made in my second paragraph from “Also logos is present in the text when it describes how it took the hunters months of waiting in order to catch the creature; the authors describing it as a long process makes the hoax seem more possible and convincing that the loch ness monster was actually caught” to the edited version “The text increases believability when it stated “(t)he hunters, who had been lying in wait for months, succeeded in capturing the monster”; the authors made the process of capturing the creature as long and tedious, the readers will be more compelled in believing this hoax when it seems that the process took a long period of patience and dedication in finding the creature similarly to how most scientific discoveries happen.” After I looked at the order in which I placed my evidence within each paragraph and altered it so it would flow together better and become more organized in their order of placement.
Nice start, Yemaj! You’ve smoothly integrated text from your source, and the extra work you’ve done to explain why the long process would make readers find this convincing pays off. I also think it worked well to drop the term “logos” for something more specific. It would have been nice to hear a bit more detail about why you think the changes are an improvement: just like when you are quoting from someone else, quoting yourself requires a little bit of analysis afterwards.
The second half of your new sentence also reads as a fragment, so take a look at that!