(no subject)
Jul. 30th, 2013 07:54 amThe intern didn’t even email me his outline, just said “thanks” when I emailed him the first MSJ plus tabbed exhibits, and the draft MSJ he was supposed to help create.
I was asked to review a proposed issuance today for potential litigation issues, and I started with:
"I started to comment on grammar - but a) that was not solicited, b) we have many qualified writers on staff, c) [BOSS] generally did not, which I took as a sign, and d) in my view, there were a lot of grammatical and structural problems (i.e. use active voice, cut out 75% of the prepositional phrases, make it simple and easy to understand, and use correct comma phrase structure). I suggest we solicit staff to give the item a grammatical and style/readability review, but I will not give that feedback outside this group. If there was a way to communicate that a product this rough grammatically is more time consuming to review due to the distraction factor, it might be helpful.
The shortest way of addressing the grammar/style problems would be to nudge the authoring group to suggest they switch the entire document to active voice.
Also, http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5466/correct-position-of-only would make this clearer. Even when technically correct, the convoluted sentence structure makes this very hard to read - and therefore subject to misinterpretation and litigation."
I haven't looked to see if in criticizing their grammEr I made any mistakes myself (nor this post). I just don't care that much - the bar is so low...lulz kthxbi
(nudge...to suggest?)
I was asked to review a proposed issuance today for potential litigation issues, and I started with:
"I started to comment on grammar - but a) that was not solicited, b) we have many qualified writers on staff, c) [BOSS] generally did not, which I took as a sign, and d) in my view, there were a lot of grammatical and structural problems (i.e. use active voice, cut out 75% of the prepositional phrases, make it simple and easy to understand, and use correct comma phrase structure). I suggest we solicit staff to give the item a grammatical and style/readability review, but I will not give that feedback outside this group. If there was a way to communicate that a product this rough grammatically is more time consuming to review due to the distraction factor, it might be helpful.
The shortest way of addressing the grammar/style problems would be to nudge the authoring group to suggest they switch the entire document to active voice.
Also, http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5466/correct-position-of-only would make this clearer. Even when technically correct, the convoluted sentence structure makes this very hard to read - and therefore subject to misinterpretation and litigation."
I haven't looked to see if in criticizing their grammEr I made any mistakes myself (nor this post). I just don't care that much - the bar is so low...lulz kthxbi
(nudge...to suggest?)