TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Peer Reviews From:Bonni Graham <bonnig -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 27 Jun 1995 21:22:48 -0700
Dick,
Us? OPINIONS? Nah...
Actually, I have nothing but positive results fromusing the peer
review. I'm sure Sue Gallagher (one of the writers who was a "peer")
will chime in onthis,too. When we worked together to produce a doc set
for a Smalltalk development system, peer review was the ONLY way we
came up with of making sure allthe writing sounded like it was produced
by a single entity -- US. Of course, the situations are slightly
different -- we were all working on the same piece of software. And, in
fact, the only times I've used peer review has been on doc teams (I'm
also using it to good effect now with another contractor at a client
site) who are documenting the same software.
Still, I found it pretty effective. You just have to make sure you
make time in the schedule for review. Easier said than done, I know,
but not impossible...
The writers working for me (I subcontract a bit of work) all know that
they're going to have to write to my standards, and the fastest way to
that is peer review, right now.
