Mantex

Tutorials, Study Guides & More

  • HOME
  • REVIEWS
  • TUTORIALS
  • HOW-TO
  • CONTACT
>> Home / Archives for Editing

Checking drafts of essays

August 22, 2009 by Roy Johnson

sample from HTML program and PDF book

1. Checking drafts takes place when you have produced the first version of an essay. You should be prepared to check through it carefully. Make any changes necessary to improve the clarity and effectiveness of what you have written.

2. Do not be tempted to hand in the essay just because you have written the last word.

3. You should eliminate any weaknesses. Check your punctuation and grammar.

4. Correct any mistakes, and even rearrange the order of your paragraphs if it will improve the quality and coherence of your argument.

5. Eliminate anything which is not strictly relevant to the question topic(s) you have been asked to deal with.

6. Use the list of suggestions which follow to check that you have covered what is required.

7. Try to avoid thinking of the first draft as the finished essay, no matter how much effort you have put into its production.

8. Regard it instead as the raw material from which a more considered and well-crafted second draft will be produced. You should be prepared for extensive re-writing.

9. When word-processing your work, edit the final draft on screen.

10. Eliminate all errors and add all your corrections before printing out the final draft.


Checklist

  • Write out the question accurately and fully at the head of your draft
  • Answer its specific directions and follow any instructions in the rubric
  • Cover all the main aspects of the question topic(s) concerned
  • Answer in a concise, clear, and logical manner
  • Remain strictly relevant to the question throughout
  • Stay within any given word limit required
  • Move smoothly from one point of argument to the next
  • Provide good illustrative examples and evidence to support your claims
  • Acknowledge your sources and supply either endnotes or footnotes
  • Provide a bibliography

© Roy Johnson 2003

Buy Writing Essays — eBook in PDF format
Buy Writing Essays 3.0 — eBook in HTML format


More on writing essays
More on How-To
More on writing skills


Filed Under: Writing Essays Tagged With: Academic writing, Drafts, Editing, Essays, Study skills, Term papers, Writing skills

Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors

August 4, 2009 by Roy Johnson

specialist scientific style guide and reference

This Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors is aimed at scholars working in an academic setting and people writing or editing scientific papers – say in book publishing or the mass print media. It gives exact details of how scientific matter is presented in written form – both in terms of the correct spelling for scientific terms and the manner in which scientific data such as equations are rendered on the page. It’s part of a set of specialist dictionaries and style guides produced by Oxford University Press.

Dictionary for Scientific Writers and EditorsThe OUP is the number one source for reference books of this kind, and the series manages to compress huge, unwieldy databases of information into a handy, useable format. This single volume includes over 9,700 entries which reflect accepted usage, and it follows the recommendations of international scientific bodies such as the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics.

It gives clear guidance on such matters as spellings (American English and British English), punctuation, abbreviations, prefixes and suffixes, units and quantities, and symbols. Also included are the correct spelling of chemical and medical terms; short explanations of the meaning of scientific concepts; basic data about famous scientists; explanations of acronyms; and definitions of terms.

There are appendices with lists of chemical and electro-magnetic symbols; the periodic table; scientific symbols; and a list of web-based resources. It provides substantially enlarged coverage from previous editions, with increased coverage of the life sciences, and new entries in physics, astronomy, chemistry, computer science, and mathematics.

This comprehensive and authoritative A-Z guide is an invaluable tool for students, professionals, and publishers working with writing in the fields of physics, chemistry, botany, zoology, biochemistry, genetics, immunology, microbiology, astronomy, mathematics, and computer science.

These style guides are in a curious format – royal sixteenmo – which is smaller than a conventional book, but too bulky to be pocket-sized. But I must say that it looks quite diminutively handsome on my shelves alongside its colleagues the New Oxford Spelling Dictionary, New Hart’s Rules, and the Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation.

© Roy Johnson 2009

Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors   Buy the book at Amazon UK

Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors   Buy the book at Amazon US


New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp.451, ISBN: 0199545154


More on language
More on literary studies
More on writing skills
More on creative writing
More on grammar


Filed Under: Dictionaries Tagged With: Dictionaries, Dictionary for Scientific Writers & Editors, Editing, English language, Reference, Scientific writing, Writing skills

Dictionary for Writers and Editors

August 4, 2009 by Roy Johnson

difficult cases of spellings and expressions

The Dictionary for Writers and Editors has been ‘repurposed’ from its original larger-scale edition to sit alongside the New Oxford Spelling Dictionary, New Hart’s Rules, and the Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation. These form a group of new reference sources for writers and editors who are concerned with preparing texts for publication to the highest possible standard. It’s a specialist dictionary for writers, journalists, and text-editors. It offers rulings on words and spellings which are commonly problematic.

Dictionary for Writers and Editors For instance, do we write Muslim or Moslem, customise or customize? It covers the names of well-known people and places, foreign words and commonly-used phrases such as petit-bourgeois and persona non grata. Entries run from A as a letter or paper size to Zydeco music and Zyklon B.

Many of these items are in any good dictionary, but this one eliminates all the non-problematic words and makes the book easier to use. It also deals with abbreviations, capitalization and punctuation. I looked up amendment [one ‘m’] superseded [yes – it’s spelt with an ‘s’] and manageable [it keeps the ‘e’]. It can also be used as a quick guide to many niceties of writing (the difference between hyphens and dashes) and as a potted source for historical names, dates, and places of importance.

At first glance, there might not seem much difference between this and an ordinary dictionary, but the process of selection and the emphasis on explanations of common problems makes it a very useful resource. This latest edition offers a huge revision and update on the original. Entries have been expanded on doubtful or variable spellings (“gettable” not “getable”); the punctuation of dates and spellings of proper names; and all those other little things that are so difficult to be consistent about when writing. It is also an invaluable guide to words that are often confused such as biannual (twice every year, or every six months) and biennial (every two years).

It is designed to be used in conjunction with New Hart’s Rules, which gives details of how text should be edited in preparation for printing. The headword is set in bold sans-serif, which makes it more immediately legible, though it might seem strange if you are used to the OUP tradition of bold Roman. There are four appendices: mathematical and logical symbols; proofreading marks; a list of diacritical accents; and tables for transliterating Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, and Russian.

It should certainly be amongst the reference tools of anybody who takes a serious interest in writing. The new smaller handbook format is a matter of personal taste, but it certainly looks a handsome little tome flanked by its three cousins.

Dictionary for Writers and Editors   Buy the book at Amazon UK

Dictionary for Writers and Editors   Buy the book at Amazon US

© Roy Johnson 2005


The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp.434, ISBN: 0198610408


More on language
More on literary studies
More on writing skills
More on creative writing
More on grammar


Filed Under: Dictionaries Tagged With: Dictionaries, Dictionary for Writers and Editors, Editing, Language, Writers, Writing skills

Editing and Revising Text

May 25, 2009 by Roy Johnson

beginner’s guide to editing and re-writing

Oxford University Press have just brought out a series of short beginners’ manuals on communication skills. Their emphasis is on compact, no-nonsense advice directly related to issues of everyday life. Jo Billingham’s Editing and Revising Text provides a practical approach to reworking your writing for students, office workers, and newsletter editors. She covers editing your own work and text written by others, and her whole approach is designed to help you make any writing more effective.

Editing and Revising Text Every part of writing is covered – from the choice of individual words, through sentence construction and arranging paragraphs, to creating firm structure in the parts of a longer piece of work. She discusses the differences between editing, re-writing, and proof-checking, and shows how to revise sentences for brevity, simplicity, and clarity (move the subject to the start!).

There’s an interesting section on how to edit if there’s too little or too much information in the text, plus the importance of how to judge if it’s right for its intended audience.

She also covers the process of making multiple edits – on paper and screen – and quite rightly suggests that it is best to edit for one feature at a time.

I was glad to see that she emphasises the usefulness of the word-processor as an aid to editing. It’s amazing how work can be improved by using spelling and grammar-checkers, as well as the powerful tools of cut-and-paste, and search-and-replace.

The book has examples from real articles, essays, letters and reports, and the last part is a series of checklists for different types of editing – technical, academic, business, and even email.
She also gives a brief explanation of proof-reading, and perhaps the most difficult task of all – making sure that there is structural and linguistic ‘flow’.

The chapters of these guides are short and to-the-point; but the pages are rich in hints, tips, and quotes in call-out boxes. The strength of this approach is that it avoids the encyclopedic volume of advice which in some manuals can be quite frightening.

© Roy Johnson 2005

Editing and Revising   Buy the book at Amazon UK

Editing and Revising   Buy the book at Amazon US


Jo Billingham, Editing and Revising Text, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp.136, ISBN: 0198604130


More on publishing
More on journalism
More on creative writing
More on writing skills


Filed Under: Journalism, Publishing, Writing Skills, Writing Skills Tagged With: Editing, Editing and Revising Text, Information design, Journalism, Publishing, Revising, Writing skills

Editing essays

August 22, 2009 by Roy Johnson

sample from HTML program and PDF book

1. Editing essays or any piece of writing before you submit it for assessment is a sure way of improving its quality. Only very skilled writers can produce work without making mistakes. The elimination of small errors will improve the appearance and effectiveness of what you write.

2. The difference between a first and second rate piece of work may rest on just a little extra time spent checking what you have written. Read through your work carefully and correct any errors.

3. If necessary, read the essay out loud to check its grammar and correctness, but keep in mind that a conversational tone is not appropriate in essays.

4. Eliminate any sloppy or muddled writing. If something strikes you as weak or unclear, take the trouble to put it right. If this is not possible, be prepared to eliminate it from the essay.

5. Check for sentences which are grammatically incomplete. Look out for those which might lack any part of the Subject-Verb-Object minimum for grammatical coherence.

6. Check for missing words. Insert them into even the neatest completed typescript or manuscript. If you are using a word-processor, a grammar-checker might help you here.

7. Check that you have spelled correctly any proper names, technical terms, or lesser-known words. If in doubt, look them up in a good dictionary. Use the spell-checker if your word-processor has one.

8. Check that your punctuation is consistent, accurate, and legible.

9. Check for consistency in the layout of your pages.

10. If your final draft contains a lot of mistakes and corrections, be prepared to re-write it, even if this will take quite some time. This will give you the opportunity to improve your presentation, and you will probably discover that you can introduce further improvements to the arguments.


Checklist

  • Eliminate any awkward turns of phrase
  • Split up any sentences which are too long
  • Re-arrange the order of your paragraphs
  • Eliminate any repetitions
  • Correct errors of spelling or punctuation
  • Create smooth links between paragraphs
  • Add anything important you have missed
  • Delete anything which is not relevant
  • Check for weak syntax and grammar
  • Run the grammar-checker and spell-checker

© Roy Johnson 2003

Buy Writing Essays — eBook in PDF format
Buy Writing Essays 3.0 — eBook in HTML format


More on writing essays
More on How-To
More on writing skills


Filed Under: Writing Essays Tagged With: Academic writing, Editing, Essays, Study skills, Term papers, Writing skills

Editing on screen and paper

November 18, 2009 by Roy Johnson

an email discussion amongst professional writers

Editing documentsThis discussion first took place on the WRICOM (Writing and Computers) mailing list, which is hosted by Mailbase (UK). Note that these are personal opinions, exchanged in the casual manner of email messaging. The language and style are deliberately informal. There is no guarantee that the email addresses of individual contributors will be up to date.

 

From: Roy Johnson <Roy@mantex.co.uk>

If you write using a word-processor, you may have noticed something rather odd. You can create a perfect document, check the spelling, and even check the grammar – but when you come to print out the document you notice things which you missed on screen.

These might be mistakes, or they might just be points of style or emphasis you want to change. If it’s a long document, you’ll feel like kicking yourself and you might feel guilty about all the paper you’re wasting.

For many writers, editing work on screen and on paper appear to be two different things. Why is this?

Maybe writers are reluctant to edit their work when it is in the ultimate form it will assume prior to being published. But perhaps not when it is still in its penultimate form?

That is, if my electronic text, on disk, is destined to become a printed book, I am reluctant to change the contents of the disk on which I have worked for hours and hours.

However, when I print out the pages, they seem to me a penultimate version which can still be chopped around with impunity.

This seems puzzling. Does anybody have the same experience, or observations on what’s happening?

================================

From: Jane Dorner <Jane@editor.net>

my theory is that you edit and edit on screen and the printout (long works) *becomes* the penultimate version that gets the final tweaks because it looks different.

I’m just editing a 200-page document and am extremely unwilling to print it out more than once for final tweaks. Its also far easier to edit for consistency using search & replace with the full document in memory.

======================================

From: Janet Atkinson-Grosjean <janag@whidbey.whidbey.com>

a laser printed page looks so *finished-product-ish*, I was trying to make the writing perfect, before it ever hit the page. Not surprisingly, my writing became constipated, for lack of a better word. I was on-screen editing instead of writing/drafting, because, in my mind, I wasn’t allowed to edit laser-printed copy because it was *finished.*

After driving myself nuts for a while, I decided to print all drafts in the yukkiest-looking Courier typeface I could find. This works. It tricks me enough. Only the ultimate, finished product uses a different font.

==================================

From: Austin Meredith <rchow@benfranklin.hnet.uci.edu>

the WYSIWIG technology is not adequately advanced at this point. Even in the very best of the current technology … the display of the material on the screen and the printing of the material across the printer does not result in precisely the same level of clarity.

my reluctance to edit heavily on phototypesetter page proofs can entirely be accounted for by the hard and unpleasant fact that the publisher is going to charge me money for each change I make which is not the publisher’s fault, and deduct that amount unilaterally from my royalty checks later!

I am editing on the screen _and_ on paper. Despite the excellence of my equipment, my print display is still superior to my screen display. But there are types of editing which are better done on screen. Spell-checking is an obvious instance of this, but there are other types of editing which are better done on screen.

==============================

From: Rich Berman <rich@interport.net>

I see things like puncutation and misspellings more easily in hard copy, but also sentence structure. Things like too many short sentences together, or too many compounds etc. I also find them easier to correct in hard copy, with pen and paper.

Is it possible that this is because with hard copy you can compare new with old. When you make a correction on the screen, you see only the new. When on hard copy on the other hand, both are there, the original typed, and the new in pen and ink, (and somewhat in the imagination.)

certain media allow us to see some things more clearly than others, although I have read advice to writers that suggested that saving all the material that we cut helps us experience it as not lost, and therefor feel no sense of loss. That might support your idea, Roy.

==============================

From: <Robert_P_KOLKER@umail.umd.edu>

Ive had similar experiences as Roy Johnson of written text on and off the page. Ive done a number of books which Ive edited entirely on screen, and which looked just fine when they got to print. However, in the instances when I do print out a text to edit, I see things–nuances of word patterns, mostly–that I miss on the screen. Whats happening I think, is a holdover from pre-computer days (yes, I’m a middle-aged early adopter, or is it adapter?). I still find the printed word of a different texture than the word on CRT. I find this neither good nor bad. While I cannot read large amounts of text on the screen, I can write them. And edit them. A different kind of fine tuning comes when I hold the words in my hand.

==================

From: Eric Johnson <johnsone@dsuvax.dsu.edu>

I write and edit on a computer screen, but when I think the document is in final form and print it, I want to make more revisions. The reason may simply be that it is much easier to see more of the document at one time when it is printed on paper.

Now, as graphic word processors attempt to present on the screen what will be printed (WYSIWYG), we may end up doing more — not less — editing on paper since a monitor that displays WYSIWYG type in reasonable size often cannot display a whole line at one time.

Regardless of whether WYSIWYG word processing will result in more editing on paper, it may be a step backward for careful writers: good writers want to focus on the words, the language, but WYSIWYG forces writers to pay more attention to the appearance of the letters and lines (not to mention the temptation the tool bars offer of fooling around with fonts, etc.)

========================

From: “R. Allan Reese” <R.A.Reese@gri.hull.ac.uk>

I agree with other contributors that, despite twenty years of writing on screens (yes, honest, I was using a single-user mini-computer in the mid 70s and previously used a mainframe editor), I still have to at some stage revise on a print-out. I suggest that having a small window on the screen tends to make one focus on micro-revision – getting the words right in each sentence. I can also read through and consider the linear logic on screen. However, with the print out I will look backwards and forwards, review the overall structure, and the “feel”. Since the “reader” will usually be given a paper copy, I need to see the same.

What I would say is that the number of printed-out drafts is considerably reduced, and the marks made on the paper copy are either minor points of appearance or notes to prompt major revisions. I do almost all my “writing” on a screen – as I’m doing at this instant.

===========================

From: Christopher G. Fox <cfox@unix.cc.emory.edu>

I don’t think we should neglect the brute, ergonomic factors here as well. My eyes may be somewhat over-sensitive to this kind of problem, but I simply cannot stare at the screen with the kind of intensity I need for visually editing a document. All of the possible combinations of backlighting, glare reduction, etc. don’t change the fact that its still a VDT I’m looking at. As LCD displays become more prevalent and more sophisticated, a fully on-screen writing process will most likely become more prevalent, but I don’t think the current state of interface technology (video display, keyboard, mouse) is quite up to the task. Although I do compose and do preliminary editing on screen I inevitably need to print out in order to make typos visible and and to notice more large scale grammatical and rhetorical mistakes/changes.

=================================

From: Mike Sharples <mike@cogs.susx.ac.uk>

For me, whether or not I edit on screen or on paper is not just a matter of choice – I seem to catch different errors and problems in the two media. On paper, not surprisingly, I get a better overview of a large document – its structure and narrative flow. I also seem to be able to spot niggly errors, such as repeated words, better on paper. On screen I can often read text more rapidly (by scrolling it past me) to scan for gist. &&

=================================

From: Barbara Diederichs <bdiederi@artsci.wustl.edu>

Electronic word processing tools and of course hypertext facilitate a way of writing that is not very concerned with linear structures. When I write a paper using the computer, I start with a handwritten outline and within that framework put down mythoughts and research results as more or less independent pieces and with little regard to logical order. I superimpose that in the printout, which in a way allows to combine the particularities of both media.

I am wondering, though, if the necessity to eventually cast (almost everything we want to say in the traditional paper form, cuts us off from a form of creativity that might become accessible in the electronic medium. The fragmented and associative way of not only expressing oneself, but thinking, that the electronic medium allows for, might open new directions for scholarship.

An example might be the idea of an ‘ultimate’ or ‘penultimate’ version that Roy Johnson mentions in the above quote: the openness of electronic systems that Landow (‘Hypertext. The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology’ 1992) claims as ‘a revolution in human thought’, abandons the very concept of final versions. What would that allow for in scholarship? Maybe bold hypotheses that would provoke dialogue, tests, verification or dismissal rather than having to be ‘right’. Coming straight to the point, rather than justifying the path from one point to another. Giving details that would be uneconomical in the printed medium but might help us develop the collective intelligence of the ‘giant compound’ that David Megginson mentions. Etc.

Has any of you written research in hypertext format? Would you accept a dissertation written in hypertext?

===============================

From: Jerome J. Mc Gann <jjm2f@lizzie.engl.virginia.edu>

1. ANY scholarly-critical edition is ‘research in hypertext format’. and here one wants to remind everyone that ‘research’ etc., and litcrit, is hardly confined to the setpiece essay — indeed, that form is one of the most constricting and restrictive we have evolved. not to make advertisements for myself, i would still suggest that the implicit and often explicit subject of both _The Textual Condition_ and _Black Riders. The Visible Language of Modernism_ is ‘hypertext’ (see in the latter the ‘Dialogue on Dialogue’ in particular).

2. look at the back issues of postmodern culture, especially the last couple (http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pmc/contents.all.html).

3. look at the ‘general publications’ of UVAs institute for advanced technology in the humanities

(http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/generalpubs.html).

4. finally, look at various online homepages for courses. aren’t courses ‘research projects’ (in my experience, courses are scenes where _everyone_ learns; ‘teaching’ is a topdown model of learning ive never been able to find very attractive. or much help.

=================================

From: ‘J. A. Holmes’ <starfyr@access.digex.net>

I find I still do a lot of editing on paper (for text or code) because watching the screen is not easy on my eyes. Initial creation I do lots of moving stuff around, but when I think Im getting close to done the need/desire to linger over each piece (keep/throw away/modify) while deciding its fate just has me staring too intently at the screen. Also Ive not ever used a editor with markup capability. I can make the changes or just move along. When doing an edit, particularly the final, (or hopefully final) version, I just want to mark problem spots/changes. If I actually stop to make the changes I lose the thread, and cant properly deal with how the local changes affect the document as a whole.

In a similar vein, the trend towards online documentation for programmers is beginning to be a problem to me, I just cant read 400+ pages onscreen.

===============================

From: Patrick TJ McPhee <ptjm@io.org>

For what they’re worth, here are a few thoughts.

1. its (measurably) easier to read text printed at even low (300dpi) resolutions than current screen resolutions

2. a paper version of a document displays more of the document at a time than an on-line version, even if you have a big monitor

3. you think differently with a pen in your hand.

These aside, I agree with you that its easier to make a change to a copy of a document than it is to the master. When you go back to change the original, you can rethink the changes you write on the paper, which effectively gives you two revisions for the effort of one. Its nice to keep an RCS copy of the document, so you can always go back to an earlier version if you change your mind.

=====================================

From: ‘J. Hartley’ <psa04@cc.keele.ac.uk>

1. Familiarity with the genre is important as well as length. Well practiced skills will require less editing. I write long letters, but rarely edit them – so who the text is for is important too.

2. The method one is using plays a part. I dont edit much on e-mail, as readers will discover if they read on, no doubt.

3. I used to write by hand and my secretary word-processed the script. I then copiously edited her paper versions. I now do all (well nearly all) my writing by machine. I now do a lot more editing on screen before making a print out – which I then edit by hand. For much the same reasons as other have expressed.

However, if I am starting an article I sometimes like to rough it out, and then print it out to see how it is shaping up. I then try and do as much as I can on screen, and then print out. But I always regard the print out as a cue to further editing by hand. Until I force myself to stop.

4. I wonder if people who write differently, edit differently? Do the planners, who think first and then write, with little corrections, do less editing than the thinkers who edit as they go along. Obviously they do, but I wonder how they balance screen and paper editing in each case?

5. The editing one does may vary if one is _co-authoring_. Here, how much use of screen and paper editing may depend on whether one is the main, equal or subordinate author? Currently with my research assistant, I often print out a paper version for him to read. I do not give him my disc. When he writes something for me to check, he hands me his disc as well. So I edit his text on screen, and he edits mine on paper! If I were co-authoring with another colleague in a different department I suspect we would both use screens.

6. I find screen editing good for re-jigging old articles for a fresh audience. One can scissors and paste away. But I then like to see the result on paper, and I then edit it with the fresh perspective of the new audience in mind.

7. I always find it helpful to leave something, and then come back to it to edit it. I find this with both paper and screen – but am inclined to make bigger changes when dealing with paper versions.

====================================

From: AM DUDLEY-EVANS <DUDLEYAM@novell1.bham.ac.uk>

But it has always seemed to me that there are two kinds of writer, the one who composes by getting down the ideas as quickly as possible without worrying too much about accuracy, coherence etc. This is followed by the crafting stage, in which it is all tidied up, made coherent etc. The second kind of writer seems to enjoy crafting as s/he writes and does the polishing along with the composing. I suspect that the former type of writer is more common, but I know of at least one of my colleagues who fits into the second category.

But I wonder how the second kind of writer writes with the word-processor. Does s/he craft on the screen?

==============================

From: Judy Madnick <judy.madnick@accessnt.com>

I currently edit court transcripts on-screen. I also have edited manuscripts on-screen. I must admit that its very easy to miss things, probably because our reading methods on-screen are not the same as those off-screen. Ive learned to force myself to slow down (which seems to be the big issue) and almost say the words to myself. (Remember how our teachers told us not to move our lips? Well, they wouldnt want to be watching me proof on-screen!)

So . . . yes, for many people seeing their work on paper seems to result in additional editing; however, I do believe that with careful analysis of the methods being used on-screen, editing CAN be done successfully either way.

=============================

From: Ellen Kessler <etk@panix.com>

Ive been a writer/editor for almost 30 years, and I have noticed a few curious and inexplicable things:

1. The way a piece looks affects the way it is read. I often think that Ive finished editing something in manuscript, for instance, only to see the typeset galleys and shudder. Ive never understood this phenomenon, but now that I think about it, I believe that when I read something back, I read it as a reader not the author, and react to it as new material, which, of course, I must improve. I also think it has something to do with the way the brain processes visual information.

I can work for a long time on my computer, but when I have various versions and want to compare them, I often print them out. I save discarded text at the bottom of the file, in case I want to use it later. Eventually, I always print the stuff out and read it away from my computer. I think a bit of distance, in the forms of time and space, are helpful. I believe everything I write can be better edited the day after I write it.

===============================

From Clare Macdonald <mead@nada.kth.se>

For me, a lot of the pleasure of revising on a printed copy comes from the fact that the text stays put. This creates an additional context(location on the page) that I can use to mentally navigate.

When working with a long document, remembering where on the page (and on which page) a particular passage is can help me locate it quickly. I could probably find it even faster by searching for the phrase with my word processor, but then I’d lose something of my mental image of the structure of the document – or at least my working memory would start to feel seriously overloaded. I’d probably get several matches for my search and have to spend some mental resources considering each and rejecting the ones I don’t want. With a printout, I don’t have to bother with instances that occur early in the text if I know that what I’m interested in is part of the Conclusion – just scan the last few pages.

Of course, each time I print the revised document the location of the text changes, so perhaps this is part of the reason I’ll notice different problems in different versions – the location-context supports slightly different comparisons.

========================

From Carol Buchanan <buchanan@sprynet.com>

I work as a technical writer, in the area of cabin electronics and computer systems, for the Boeing Company. (I also have a PhD in English.) Although my writing skills are excellent, I cannot edit my own work. I see what I expect to see. I find I cannot do without the help of an editor who scrutinizes the manuals for everything from grammar, punctuation, and spelling to format and logic. She edits online, and I make corrections online, but for really knowing what the document’s pages look like and for catching more errors, she prints every draft and subjects it to another scrutiny. Then, after we think we’ve got it right, we pass it to a proofreader who reads it closely on paper and catches still more errors.

The same thing occurs with the books I’ve written. I write the book online, print it, read it, fix the problems I see, and print the final copy which I send, along with the diskette, to the publisher. The editor there edits the typescript, then returns it for correction. I make the corrections, and back it goes. The editor sends the book to a copyeditor, who has other questions and sees other problems, which I respond to and return the typescript and diskette. Then the typesetter sets the book in final pages, which I read through for the last time while the proofreader reads the paper copy. Invariably, I find more mistakes. This time I do not make corrections in the files, but on the paper.

I offer this lengthy description of what happens in corporate technical editing and in commercial publishing in support of two points:

  1. For some reason, we do not see quite the same online and on paper.It would take an expert in perception to explain it. I can’t.
  2. To do a professional job of bringing writing to publication, several people have to collaborate in a team, each with his or her own skills. Even after that, mistakes will still occur.

© Roy Johnson 2009


More on writing skills
More on creative writing
More on grammar


Filed Under: Creative Writing, How-to guides, Journalism, Study Skills, Writing Skills Tagged With: Editing, Editing on screen, Electronic Writing, Publishing, Writing skills

Editing your writing

October 14, 2012 by Roy Johnson

What is editing?

Editing is the final stage of the writing process. It takes place just before your work is due to be submitted. It involves the detailed inspection of your text with a view to regularising its spelling, punctuation, grammar, and even typographical layout.

In the world of publishing, this stage is called ‘proof-reading’. It is the point at which you check that all your details are correct, and you examine the document very closely for internal consistency prior to releasing it into public view.

Editing is a process of checking your work very carefully in order to –

  • remove any spelling mistakes
  • check your grammar
  • make your punctuation consistent
  • re-write any clumsy expressions

Editing methods

The degree to which your text needs to be closely edited will depend upon the nature of the of writing. A spelling mistake might be tolerated in a student essay, but in a report written for the public it would look very bad indeed.

The best way to edit your writing is to split the task into a number of separate stages. Edit for just one feature at a time. Go through the work checking your spelling, then go back again to check grammar – and so on. Use the list of features below as a guide.

This is because it is difficult (and very tiring) to hold all these issues in your head at the same time. You have a choice of doing this on a computer screen or on paper. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages.


Editing on screen

The major advantage of editing your work on screen is that you can make as many changes as you wish. The work is always up to date, in its very latest version. Another advantage is that you can see immediately the effect of any changes you make.

Spelling-checkers and even grammar-checkers are now built in to most text editors. You can use FIND and REPLACE to make global changes automatically. For instance, if you have spelled someone’s name ‘Murray’ throughout a document, then discovered it’s actually spelled ‘Murry’, use FIND/REPLACE, and select REPLACE ALL.

Don’t forget to SAVE your document after each change is made.

The only disadvantage of editing on screen is that you will loose earlier versions of your work unless you make a deliberate effort to save them separately.

Editing See more on Editing on screen and paper


Editing on paper

Some people prefer to edit on paper, for a number of very good reasons:

  • mistakes are easier to spot
  • it’s possible to have an overview
  • it looks more like the finished product
  • it creates a psychological distance from the text

Many people claim that there is a different between writing with a pen and with a keyboard. You can also see the original text, even after you have made an editing change.

The biggest disadvantage of editing on paper is that you have to re-type all changes into your original document.

Editing See more on Editing on screen and paper


Spelling

Mistakes in spelling are easy to spot, and they always create a very bad impression. Readers of your work are more likely to regard spelling mistakes as a sign of poor writing than any other feature.

It’s worth doing a spelling check twice during the editing process. Once before you begin editing, and then again after you have finished. The reason for this is that you might have introduced new typos and mistakes during the editing process.

You need to decide on alternative or English and American spellings of words such as analyze/analyse, judgement/judgment, and meter/metre. Make the spelling consistent throughout your document.

Check in particular on the spelling of names, places, foreign terms, and technical jargon.

Red button See more on spelling


Punctuation

Check that you have been consistent throughout your document in using the common marks of punctuation – the comma, semicolon, colon, and full stop.

If you are not sure about the use of the semicolon and the colon, leave them out. It’s possible to punctuate accurately using only the comma and the full stop.

What follows is an example of an entire paragraph which has been punctuated using only the comma and the full stop. [The subject is the structure of a paragraph.]

The central thought or main controlling idea of a paragraph is usually conveyed in what is called a topic sentence. This crucial sentence which states, summarises or clearly expresses the main theme, is the keystone of a well-built paragraph. The topic sentence may come anywhere in the paragraph, though most logically and in most cases it is the first sentence. This immediately tells readers what is coming, and leaves them in no doubt about the overall controlling idea. In a very long paragraph, the initial topic sentence may even be restated or given a more significant emphasis in its conclusion.

Red button See more on punctuation


Sentences

Make your sentences as short, simple, and direct as possible. This will always improve the quality of your writing. Follow the pattern Subject – Verb – Object

The table has metal legs.

Some people like raw vegetables.

My dissertation considers the biology of frogs.

Avoid starting sentences with conjunctions such as Although, Because, and Again. These often lead to grammatical problems of expression.

If any sentence in your document seems vague or problematical – re-write it, or split it up into two or more separate statements.

Avoid long sentences composed of one clause after another linked by and, commas, or conjunctions such as although, however, and because.

Editing See more on sentences


Paragraphs

The definition of a paragraph is that it deals with just one topic. It introduces the topic, explains its relevance to the subject being discussed, then comes to some form of conclusion. It might end with a statement that links the argument to the next paragraph.

The following is an example of a successful paragraph.

John Skelton was an East Anglian: he was a poet, also a clergyman, and he was extremely strange. Partly strange because the age in which he flourished – that of the early Tudors – is remote from us, and difficult to interpret. But he was also a strange creature personally, and whatever you think of him when we’ve finished – and you will possibly think badly of him – you will agree that we have been in contact with someone unusual.

Check for long paragraphs in your writing. If any go beyond one topic, split them up into separate paragraphs.

Avoid very short paragraphs. These can be used for dramatic effect – but only in journalism and creative writing.

Editing See more on paragraphs


Titles and sub-titles

Make sure that any titles or sub-titles in your writing are explanatory and consistent. They should identify the subject as briefly as possible.

Check for consistent use of capital letters. You might wish to use the traditional convention of capitalising only the most important words:

The Analysis of Amino-acids with a Spectrometer

Alternatively, the modern convention is to capitalize only the first word:

The analysis of amino-acids with a spectrometer

Notice that there is no need to punctuate titles with a full stop at the end. These are titles, not complete grammatical sentences.


Structure

The structure of a document is closely related to its purpose. But the structure of some documents may not become apparent until you have finished writing. Be prepare to use CUT and PASTE to re-order your topics and arguments to produce the best arrangement of its parts.

The best structure will depend upon the type of document. Its parts could be arranged using –

  • logical progression
  • increasing significance
  • equal significance
  • chronological order
  • narrative sequence
  • category groupings

Editing See more about structure here

© Roy Johnson 2012


More on How-To
More on literary studies
More on writing skills


Filed Under: How-to guides, Writing Skills Tagged With: Academic writing, Creative writing, Editing, Publishing, Writing skills

Essential English for Journalists

June 18, 2009 by Roy Johnson

guidance on good writing and editing techniques

Harold Evans was editor of The Sunday Times from 1967 to 1981 and then of The Times for a year. [He’s now a New York celebrity with a famous wife]. His earlier publication Newsman’s English was written in the 1970s and has now been revised and updated. Essential English for Journalists is a guide to improving the efficiency of your writing by a method which he announces at the outset as ‘a process of editorial selection, text editing, and presentation’.

Essential English for JournalistsIn fact he gets off to a slightly shambolic start by describing the various responsibilities for writing in the newsroom, but then settles down to his main subject – the crafting of good prose – where he is quite clearly at home. There’s plenty of good advice on sentence construction, editing for clarity, choice of vocabulary, avoiding obscurity and abstraction, plus eliminating vagueness and cliche. He also includes explanations of words commonly misunderstood – such as chronic, disinterested, and viable (to which he might have added aggravate, which is mistakenly used in the text as a synonym for annoy) – plus some interesting comments on how speeches can be economically digested and reported.

The general tendency of his advice is to prefer the shorter, concrete, and Anglo-Saxon term to the longer, abstract, and Latinate expression which is all-too-prevalent: fire not conflagration, try not endeavour, end not terminate.

He also offers a long and entertaining list of common expressions which roll out of literary-cum-oral usage whose redundancies can be edited to produce a tighter result – ‘blue coloured car’, ‘crisis situation‘, and ‘in the city of Manchester’

Evans gives detailed advice on the structure of good writing. His pages on how to write an introduction will be useful to anybody who wants to make their writing more effective. [In fact I would urge the strategy on those who would like to make the arguments of academic writing stand more clear.] The basic rule is to strike out anything which is not absolutely necessary.

In the centre of the book there is a detailed exposition of how newspaper reports should be written – with critical comments on their structure and narrative strategy. Evans shows how the same basic facts can be arranged to create different emphases. This is an exemplary tutorial for anyone who wishes to acquire the skills of reporting and successful composition.

For all its subject, it’s written in a slightly inflated style which combines the short journalist’s sentence with the vocabulary of an Edwardian litterateur – very self-conscious and aware of its own rhetorical devices.

Readers have not the time and newspapers have not the space for elaborate reiteration. This imposes decisive requirements.

But the advice is sound, and it’s likely to make you look more closely at your own prose. In fact the book has at least three possible readers. It would be an excellent textbook for trainee journalists, especially given the number of clumsy examples Evans quotes and then rewrites as demonstration pieces. Second, it has plenty of tips for experienced journalists and editors trying to write more efficiently. Third, it is full of useful guidance for anyone – beyond the media – who wants to write more coherently.

Evans’ fellow journalist Keith Waterhouse wrote a similar and very amusing guide called Waterhouse on Newspaper Style which unfortunately often seems to be out of print. The two books would make an excellent pairing on any writer’s desk. It would be wise to grab Evans whilst he’s back in re-issue.

© Roy Johnson 2000

Essential English for Journalists   Buy the book at Amazon UK

Essential English for Journalists   Buy the book at Amazon US


Harold Evans, Essential English for Journalists, Editors and Writers, London: Random House, 2nd revised edn 2000, pp.256, ISBN: 0712664475


More on writing skills
More on language
More on grammar


Filed Under: Journalism, Writing Skills, Writing Skills Tagged With: Editing, English language, Essential English for Journalists, Journalism, Publishing, Writing skills

House Style

October 31, 2014 by Roy Johnson

an explanation and guidance notes

House Style is a term used to describe the rules laid down by a business or organisation to regularise the presentation of its written communications and documents. In some cases these rules might be summarised formally in a published Style Guide or Style Manual.

The purpose of codifying what can be written may vary from a desire to control a corporate image (business documents); a need to maintain standards and follow established conventions (academic writing); or a need for accuracy and precision (technical manuals).

Many different types of institutions, businesses, publishers, or public bodies will establish a house style in order to maintain their corporate or brand image.

International United Nations, European Union
Corporations Lockheed, General Motors, Microsoft
Publications New York Times, The Economist
Institutions University of London, Department of Transport
Retailers Amazon, Marks and Spencer, IKEA

The origins of house style lie in the realm of printing, where newspapers and book publishers originally sought to establish guidelines for standardising their productions. The best known of these guides is Hart’s Rules, first written at the end of the nineteenth century for the Oxford University Press. In the twenty-first century, house style is also likely to include writing and presentation guidelines for what will appear on computer screens.

There are differences of approach in the rules of these various style guides. This should alert us to the fact that they are not only dealing with matters of fact and correctness – but are offering a series of conventions which should be followed by their authors.

They are likely to have policies governing such matters as

  • Spelling
  • Grammar
  • Capitalisation
  • Use of acronyms
  • Vocabulary
  • Punctuation
  • Headlines
  • Spacing

The notes given below provide illustrative examples. For detailed information on any topic, follow the links to the online style guides and the newspaper house style sites. Some of their guides are the size of small encyclopedias.


House Style – a real example

Microsoft Manual of StyleMicrosoft’s Manual of Style illustrates the company’s rules for both print and screen writing, as well as their requirements for visual presentation and language use.

For instance, each topic they discuss is illustrated by an example of ‘Microsoft style’ and then an example of ‘Not Microsoft style’.

They also specify such fine details as how to present numbers; how to choose the names for toolbars and buttons; how to punctuate lists; how to size titles, sub-headings, and paragraph spaces; and where to use quotation marks.

The following is their table of contents for the topics covered in their house style guide – many of them in extremely fine detail.

  • Microsoft style and voice
  • Writing for web delivery
  • Writing for a worldwide audience
  • Accessibility issues
  • The user interface
  • Technical procedures
  • Practical issues of style
  • Grammar
  • Punctuation
  • Indexing and keywords
  • Acronyms and abbreviations

Style guides might now make distinctions between house style for print and for online purposes – because the two mediums are considered quite distinct, and may have different readerships and purposes.

Reading on a computer screen is more tiring than reading from a printed document. For this reason, style guides for digital use may specify shorter sentences and paragraphs, wider margins, and the inclusion of graphics.

House style manuals very often specify how the various departments and personnel in an organisation should be described. They are also likely to specify such details as the size and spacing of titles, headings, and sub-headings.


Spelling

Some words (in English) have more than one spelling. The term judgement can also be spelled judgment. House style rules help to create consistency throughout a document. And consistency is a key principle in creating ease of comprehension.

Newspapers also strive to use consistent spellings for foreign names such as Reykjavik (the capital of Iceland) and Nizhni Novgorod (a port in European Russia).

They are also likely to specify the spelling of names of important people – such as Ban Ki-Moon (Secretary General of the United Nations) and Aung San Suu Kyi (opposition leader in Myanmar – formerly Burma). This shows respect for the person.

American English and British English have minor differences in spelling, so documents aimed at both audiences need to be consistent.

British centre, harmonise, travelling
American center, harmonize, traveling

Printed style guides

This is a selection of book reviews featuring style guides published by a variety of organisations.

House Style MLA Style Guide
English – Modern Languages Association – Academic

House Style Microsoft Manual of Style
American – Microsoft Corporation – Business

House Style The Chicago Manual of Style
American – Chicago University – Academic

House Style New Hart’s Rules
English – Oxford University Press – Publishing

House Style The Economist Style Guide
English – Economist Magazine – Journalism


Note of interest — it is said that the complete printed maintenance manuals for the Boeing 737 jet weighed more than the aircraft itself.


Vocabulary

The choice of vocabulary is important because it reflects the nature and the attitude of the organisation. The language you choose needs to be understood by the audience(s). It should be clear, unambiguous, and consistent.

It is now very common for organisations to specify the terms used to describe people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and issues related to gender.

For instance, the BBC specifies that people with learning disabilities should be used – not mentally handicapped. It specifies Muslim instead of Moslem.

The Guardian newspaper used to prohibit the use of the term regime to describe a government – because the term is clearly derogatory and suggests a bias against a government which might become legitimate in a few week’s time.

The Telegraph newspaper has a list of ‘banned words’ in its house style guide. These are not ideologically taboo words so much as lists of journalistic clichés used in tabloid newspapers – terms such as bloodbath, clampdown, jaw-dropping, and prestigious.


Online style guides

BBC News style guide
Detailed guidelines for print, online, plus radio and television broadcasting. Also includes rules on pronunciation and spelling of foreign names.

English Grammar
Comprehensive grammar guide, with downloadable lessons, interactive exercises, grammar checker, videos, and daily updates.

Purdue On-line Writing Lab
Purdue’s famous OWL, useful for general writing concerns, with links to American academic style guides and how to avoid plagiarism.

The Elements of Style
William Strunk, Jr.’s original 1918 classic. The ‘bare bones’ approach to common problems, with illustrative examples.

On-Line Study Resources
Style, grammar, essay-writing, citations and footnotes, plagiarism and presentation from the University of New South Wales.

alt.usage.english – Style FAQ
Mark Israel’s Frequently Asked Questions covers common English usage questions, word etymology, online and offline references, and more.

WebGrammar
Judy Vorfeld’s excellent site covers some of the most common writing mistakes, including spelling, grammar and homonym errors.


Capitalization

The correct use of capital letters is not quite so straightforward as it might seem. It is not always immediately clear if someone, somewhere, or something warrants a capital or not. The following are some of the more common instances.

days of the week Wednesday, Friday
places Scotland, East Anglia
rivers the river Mersey
buildings the Tate Gallery
institutions the Catholic Church
firms British Aerospace
organisations the National Trust
months of the year April, September

However, when such terms are used as adjectives or in a general sense as common nouns, no capital is required:

the King James Bible / a biblical reference

Oxford University / a university education

the present Government / governments since 1967

Capitals are used when describing intellectual movements or periods of history:

Freudian – Platonism – Cartesian – the Middle Ages
the Reformation – the Enlightenment

They are also used in the titles of books, plays, films, newspapers, magazines, songs, and works of art in general. The normal convention is to capitalise the first word and any nouns or important terms. Smaller words such as ‘and’, ‘of’, and ‘the’ are left uncapitalised:

A View from the Bridge
The Mayor of Casterbridge
North by Northwest
The Marriage of Figaro


UK journalism style guides

Online style guides The Guardian

Online style guides The Economist

Online style guides Reuters

Online style guides Associated Press

Online style guides The Telegraph

Online style guides Financial Times Lexicon

© Roy Johnson 2014


More on publishing
More on journalism
More on creative writing
More on writing skills


Filed Under: How-to guides, Journalism, Publishing, Writing Skills Tagged With: Editing, Journalism, Writing skills

New Hart’s Rules

July 29, 2009 by Roy Johnson

style and text-presentation rules for writers and editors

New Hart’s Rules started its life as the house style rule book for editorial principles at Oxford University Press. It was written by Horace Henry Hart who was Printer to the Press, and first published in 1893 as quite a slim volume. But it has become so popular ever since that it grew in size and eventually reached a thirty-ninth edition. Now it has been enlarged even further and completely re-cast in a new format, adapted from The Oxford Guide to Style, but retaining much of the content and the spirit of the old Hart’s Rules.

New Hart's Rules The guide deals with the typographic details of assembling writing ready for its appearance in printed form. This includes punctuation, capitalization, italicization, abbreviations, and the presentation of numbers. The latest edition also has completely new chapters covering law and legal references, tables, illustrations, indexing, plus copyright and other publishing responsibilities. Each chapter has been given far more illustrative examples.

For instance, my edition of the old 39th edition has less than 200 pages: this new version has more than 400. The beauty of this book – in common with other style guides which have become classics – is that it quickly establishes the general rule, then all further examples are the difficult, awkward, and obscure cases. For those people endlessly puzzled by spelling-checkers, there is an explanation of the rules governing -ise and -ize. OUP have always favoured -ize, so surprisingly it’s criticize yet compromise, and agonize yet televise.

The principles underlying the need for consistent conventions remain as important as ever. The presentation of money, time, dates, and even the points of the compass are included, as well as temperature, Latin plant and animal names, capitalization of titles, word breaks (hyphenation) and such wonderfully arcane details as the need for a possessive ‘s’ in Roman following an italicized title – as in the Dreadnought‘s crew.

There’s an explanation of proof correction (with examples) and a guide to punctuation, symbols, and the presentation of scientific equations and formulae. Then in the centre of the book there is a section dealing with the alternate spellings of ‘difficult’ words (colander, haemorrhoids, skiing) then a very useful explanation of the rules on the tricky issue of doubling consonants at word endings (billeted, compelled, travelling) and plurals formed in non-English words (bacilli, errata, matrices).

Hart then takes on the topic of language change in listing those words which have progressed from compounds to single words (a process which is usually faster in the US than the UK) – antifreeze, lifetime, tonight – though it is hard for a book of this type to keep up with contemporary developments in this respect. Do we write word processor, word-processor, or wordprocessor, for instance? However, Hart has no hesitation in recommending birth-rate, copy-book, and test-tube.

Guidance on how to deal with foreign languages include sections on French, German, Italian, and Russian – plus Welsh, Dutch and Afrikaans which have been added in the latest edition.

The latter part of the book includes a complete checklist of topics to be covered in preparing a book for publication: text, footnotes, illustrations, bibliographies, tables, and even how to deal with plays and poetry. And finally, since it’s quite hard to locate items in such a tightly-compacted work of reference, there’s an excellent index.

This is a source for anyone interested in the preparation of text for print. If you have a research paper, an article, or a book which you hope will see light of day as a publication, then do yourself a favour and buy this marvelous guide to the small details which make all the difference between an amateurish and a properly edited piece of writing.

© Roy Johnson 2005

New Hart's Rules   Buy the book at Amazon UK

New Hart's Rules   Buy the book at Amazon US


New Hart’s Rules, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp.417, ISBN: 0198610416


More on dictionaries
More on language
More on literary studies
More on grammar


Filed Under: Journalism, Publishing, Study skills Tagged With: Editing, Language, New Hart's Rules, Publishing, Reference, Style guides, Writing skills

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Get in touch

info@mantex.co.uk

Content © Mantex 2016
  • About Us
  • Advertising
  • Clients
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Links
  • Services
  • Reviews
  • Sitemap
  • T & C’s
  • Testimonials
  • Privacy

Copyright © 2025 · Mantex

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in