Honestly, I didn't enjoy these read very much.  It was way too redundant for me to actually appreciate, but I finished it anyways.  I believe that Mark Mason was very successful with the revisions he made.  He started out, in his first draft, by just throwing his ideas out on paper, while his third draft was actually written very well.  He provided more details and information in each draft up till the final.  He also added citations to make it look more thorough and researched.  He actually made the paper look like an actually research paper, and did a good job of it.  Mark Mason also changed the order around in his paper to make it flow with more ease. Mark Mason's title is very interesting to me.  At first, I didn't quite get it, but after thinking about it for a little bit, I understood it.  It definitely is a perfect title for his paper because it describes, in very few words, what his essay's meaning is composed of.  In Mason's opening paragraph, he revises it to make it more catchy to the reader.  He attempts to entice the reader, and he is, in my opinion very successful at it.  His opening sentence is also very interesting because it so opposite of the actually essay.  His first paragraph of his final draft definitely improved his paper drastically.  It just made the entire essay more welcoming and interesting.  Revisions of my own have definitely benefitted me.  They have made my papers more interesting and easier to comprehend and interpret.  It is very hard for me to cut things out of my own paper because I feel that I included them in the paper for a purpose. The hardest part about revising my papers is trying to make the material relate easier to the reader.