Talk:Rhetoric and Composition/Editing

--Mattbarton.exe 18:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC) This page would benefit from the addition of section headings like the other pages.

-- 01 Dec Dennis G. Jerz. What about reorganizing this section to specify the difference between substantive editing and proofreading? Both are editing tasks, but I make a big deal about how substantive editing is vital in the early stages, and proofreading is a waste of time until your paper is in good shape. I prefer to use the word "revision" when I mean "making big changes in the structure" and "editing" only when I mean proofreading.

I think that's an excellent idea, Dennis. I do the same thing when I teach editing. --Mattbarton.exe 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

We're back in action
We're back to make this wiki #1.--Mattbarton.exe 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

--Peabody33 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)== Nice to see Wiki again... ==

Hello, Wiki.

Editing vs. Revision
I was reading the comment about being sure to define the difference between editing and revising. I see that there is a section about that difference in the revision section of the book. I am wondering if students might automatically check out only the editing section rather than the revision section. My suggestion would be to include the same definition of the difference between editing and revision in BOTH sections... --Kyoung 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Kim. I also wonder if we shouldn't rearrange the order of topics on the Rhet/Comp homepage. I think "Revision" should follow "Drafting," and "Editing should follow "Revision."--Joshboyd 23:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if "Editing Tips" should follow "Macro and Micro Level Editing" I was also wondering if we could maybe change Macro and Micro-Level Editing" to something like "Proofreading and Editing" or "The Difference Between Proofreading and Editing" or "Editing vs. Proofreading"  Just an idea. --Faithmarie22 04:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think maybe we should delete that entire paragraph on the "Professor and the Madman." I don't think it relates because it is really neither about introductions nor editing, but I'm afraid to hit the trigger. Anyone with me?--Faithmarie22 18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Update:  I did delete it, I suppose if anyone is opposed they can bring it back. --199.17.19.212 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Macro/micro
I agree with you, Faith. The micro/macro editing section needs some work. I agree with both of your suggestions. I'm wondering if some of that first paragraph called micro/macro editing needs to be removed all together. What do you all think? It seems like a lot of mumble jumble (kind of like this posting of mine :-) ).--Kyoung 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, overall do some sections seem to be more about composing than actually editing. Perhaps we need to rework some of these sections so they focus more on editing.--Faithmarie22 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

--Joshboyd 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I think we should move the first sections (i.e. Introductions, thesis statements, etc.) into a section on either composing or revising. When I think of editing, I think of small changes, not rewriting my introduction or even evaluating my introduction to see if it makes sense. Anyone opposed? If not, let's clean out this section.

I am not opposed, I do not think they belong in the editing section -- but I don't think we can ignore overall editing either - the overall structure, meaning, clarity, organization, etc.. Not JUST minor changes. I'm not sure if that's what you meant.--Faithmarie22 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt's Thoughts
I'm a bit short on time here, but I've made some changes to this chapter's overview to hopefully better explain the distinction between editing, revising, and reviewing. They are obviously closely related, but it seems worthwhile to consider them independently, since they have different problems associated with them. Briefly:

Editing - going over a document and deciding what should be changed. Usually this is limited in composition textbooks to mean writing style (sentence structure, word choice, tone, etc.), though in the industry it could mean any kind of changes (an editor at a newspaper could ask for a re-write or reject a piece outright). It seems most useful here to go with the traditional understanding, just focusing on how to improve sentences, check for offensive tone, adding helpful examples, reading aloud to eliminate harsh-sounding prose, etc.

Revising - actually making the changes. I separate this because it is easy to introduce new errors when you are trying to fix old ones. The basic advice is this: If you change one word, re-read the whole sentence and edit accordingly. If you change a sentence, re-read the whole paragraph and edit accordingly; you get the idea. I also like to focus on revising the intro, since most writers introduce new ideas as they draft and forget to go back and include them in the introduction.

Reviewing - editing another writer's work. Most of what is in the editing section will apply here, but it's worth focusing on how to be diplomatic here and not offend someone. It's basically a chapter on how to offer constructive criticism.

Hope this helps!!! --Mattbarton.exe (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt H's thoughts
“The actual process of changing the introduction is called revising and comes with own set of difficulties.” – should be “with *its* own set of difficulties.” (So is this a potential edit, or revision?)

I would also rewrite the following:

“A book written by Richard Lanham titled Analyzing Prose is a great tool for writers looking to pick up ideas for new styles.”

… as:

“Richard Lanham’s Analyzing Prose is a great tool for helping writers generate ideas for new styles.”

--Matt.helm (discuss • contribs) 02:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Emily's Thought(s)
Could the "Editing Checklist" contain links to examples?

In general, does it make sense to have all the external links at the bottom? Or should they be included throughout the section? --Emily.isackson (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Karl's Thoughts
I agree with Emily that the "Editing Checklist" might benefit from links to examples. In my own case, I prefer external links included throughout each section, links that expand upon a subject if so desired.