Talk:Rhetoric and Composition/The Stages of the Writing Process

Talk 1
Hi, this is "Old Word Wolf" speaking. Yes, there's much that could be better organized and clarified, as the prior speaker (below) points out in several specific ways. I cannot address all his/her points because I haven't gotten that far yet -- but I will, I promise.

My initial contribution, right now, is a strong distaste for the intro's reliance on the phrase "good writing." Good implies a moral quality, although I know that's not the intention here. If no one objects, I'll change it to a more precise adjective, depending on the context: clear writing, precise writing, etc., along those lines.

Also, there's a major difference in meaning between "complicated" and "complex," and I think the introductory text really means "complex." Writing, in all its forms is arguably quite complex, but it is often quite UN-complicated. Most modern organizational frameworks are not complicated; many sentence patterns are not complicated; many arguments are simple and straightforward, i.e., uncomplicated.

My observations here are not meant to discredit or detract from the valuable contribution prior writers have made to this section. Quite the opposite. O.W.W. (m.j.tarnowski)

Talk 2
I think the term "mode" is confusing here when talking about steps or activities in the writing process. Most compositional theorists use "mode" to describe the generic "types of writing" -- ie definiton, narration, cause and effect, etc. I wouldn't quibble over this word if it weren't used within the same discipline to mean something much different. Thus, I've replaced "mode" with "steps" or "activities."

What's up with the "5 criteria" section coming right in the middle of the preview of the process? Is this promise carried throughout rest of wikitext? if not, it maybe should go away -- it seems thrust in willy nilly with no hookup or followup to surrounding content.

Also, the "materiality and genre" subchapter heading seems out of place in "process" here -- unless it is going to be written (hasn't been done yet)specifically on how these elements affect the writing process. There is quite a substantial discussion on analyzing assignments and deciphering/negotiating "modes" that seems to do the job. I suggest deleting this section unless someone can make it unique and a seamless part of the other steps in the writing process section.

Finally, I am waaaay confused about how revising and editing are presented. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but isn't it somewhat accepted that "revising" is changing text at the macro level, "editing" is changing at the sentence level," and "proofreading" is looking for typos and formatting errors? If not, I will totally back off. But if others agree with me about this distinction, i think we should revamp and reorder these sections...even though we are emphasizing recursivity, which is cool, i think the order should be drafting, revising, editing, proofreading........

this is what i was taught in grad school about the levels of the process, and it is the way i teach my students, which is a hard task, since they come from hs with the notion that doing "editing" on the sentence level is the first and only process they need while drafting...is a better way to look at this, going from higher concerns to lower concerns?

First off, I'm not sure who is speaking above. However, I'm not familiar with your description of "revision" and "editing." Editing is considering changes that should be made to a document, whereas revision is actually making changes. Professional editors usually don't actually revise a document--that's up to the writer. Proofreading is simply the "last scan" of a document to check for typos and such (at that point, no major changes should be necessary). --Mattbarton.exe 18:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has been adding chapters here. Do we really want to add these chapters? I think the one on collaboration is a good idea. I'm not sure if the "Materiality and Genre" section is a duplicate of the "Analyzing Assignments" chapter under Writing Apps, though. --Mattbarton.exe 18:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Research misspelled
Towards the end of the second paragraph of the "research" section.

Introduction vs Overview
At some point, the title of the first heading was "Overview", later changed to "Introduction". As this section is a sort of summary of the book, and, AFAIK, summaries of this sort are typically titled "Overview", I have reverted "Introduction" to "Overview". An overview can be likened to a birdview of a landscape; it provides a big picture of what is to come, leaving out the detail. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

spelling...
In the 2nd paragraph of Research...the word research is spelled incorrectly twice.

major omissions
typical of web articles on this subject but incomplete and suboptimal approach given as the final answer

Above the heads of first year college students?
"Churchill grew so irritated at pedants telling him..." Do first year college students know the meaning of "pendants"? I thought it was a typo at first. I looked up the word, and the meaning is appropriate, but it might read more easily if it just said "people telling him" or another word that everyone knows. --Polintr (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)