In my opinion, I felt that focusing on global edits over local edits was much more difficult and took a lot more thought when reviewing. As a reader it may be easy to notice spelling here and there, but getting the concepts and the motives of the writer and connecting it to you was much more of a process when reviewing. Overall, I felt that global edits was very helpful not only for the peers that papers were being looked at, but also useful for yourself. It gives us as writers a different aspect to the same topic, and after looking in the ideas of our classmates could help shape your paper more successfully and efficiently. One major thing I would notice which I thought was kind of funny, was that some of my points I struggled with in my original free draft were quite similar to my peers, and being able to try to guide them to better those ideas also made me accumulate some more ways to better formulate my paper. I feel like peer review in the past for me was all focused on grammatical changes, and after focusing on the global edits, I feel that I took much more useful information, and felt as if my peers were actually trying to understand what was being put on paper not just sprucing the looks of it up. All in all, I feel global editing is not only going to benefit me for peer review, but I feel if analyzing an essay or article that we will read in class focusing on the global aspects would make analysis much more efficient, and have much more take aways from the piece.