Below is the post-workshop revision plan that I included with my submission of the conference draft: 

Based on the comments on my previous essay, I definitely want to make sure that I emphasize a “so what” significance for my reader so that is a main goal to achieve, specifically through the discussion. I received a lot of positive feedback through the peer review process. The primary critique I received on my draft was to make my starting position more clear before proceeding into the details of the argument. I think that part of the reason my starting position was unclear is because my question was not refined.

Throughout my personal revision process after peer reviews, I have decided to alter my question for a few reasons. Previously I was only examining the artistic aspect of the project and whether or not the medium helped it become effective but upon further research it seemed that critics had already come to a consensus on this question. So I moved on to examining all of the aspects of the project and realized that there were some parts that were very distinct departures from art and were instead similar to characteristics of the Occupy Movement. Now my essay examines which aspects of her project relate to which movements to then come to a conclusion about how the combination led to her success. My eventual goal is to argue that the “Mattress Performance” has garnered so much attention and affected so much change compared to traditional examples of endurance, performance art because of its localist characteristics. These past few sentences have been very winding and lofty but I think you will see in my introduction that I have hopefully managed to ground them into a coherent and concise question and later answered it well in the discussion section.