(no subject)
Jul. 30th, 2013 07:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzThe 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?)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-07-30 11:10 pm (UTC)...in fact, when I finished my MA coursework, I found that my writing style had declined because I was juggling so many new concepts and frameworks--I developed a penchant for writing passive constructions, unfortunately. I still have to watch myself now.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-31 02:58 am (UTC)like in church.
Let me further upon to defecate on that point, if you will so allow my pontificateration...
The horse jumped over the fucking fence.