Although I have almost revised the first draft, I am still not satisfied with this article.

        The search for external evidence is not simple, especially some data type of evidence. Some official websites do give pure data, but I can’t analyze the original data very well. Standard data analysis is hard to find in other articles or papers.

        In this article, I often use the words in the dictionary and some related articles. I did not fully understand the usage of these words in a short time, which made some sentences in the composition seem strange. Vocabulary and grammar need to be improved.

        I don’t know enough about narrative. I didn’t even touch the wind turbine, and my knowledge of wind power came largely from textbooks, the Internet, and speculation. I don’t know if wind turbines are as deadly as they say they are. This makes the point of the article a bit naive and empty. At the end of the day, it’s just a vision of the future. This article is mainly about analyzing other people’s articles and supporting my own ideas. Most of those articles will incorporate some of the author’s own tendencies. I think if I have enough time, I’d better take a field trip to give real advice.

        The end of this article is still very short. I don’t know what to write after I have summarized the whole paper and reiterated my point of view in one sentence. I see the prompt asking me to write should reader have a new understanding or why should people care about my point of view. But in fact my opinion is not new; it’s just one of the two sides. Those ideas are just belief, and no one knows what will happen in the future.

        I’m a little confused about this article. This article is an analysis of a text. However, I use a lot of information and evidence from other places when I present my views. This way of reasoning feels more like the next article——–Arguing a Position. I feel I’m a little confused about these two things.