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:Peer Reviews -Reply From:"Dave L. Meek's User Account" <dave -at- ROGUE -dot- DISC-SYNERGY -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 28 Jun 1995 11:06:22 -0700
Judith Leetham wrote:
>IMO having peers (other writers) review your writing is better than no
>review at all. But, having been reviewed by writers, reviewed by
>editors, and reviewing other writers let me advance a warning. Writers
>who review (self included) have an almost uncontrollable urge to rewrite
>someone else's work in the way they themselves would have written
>the information originally. It takes an almost inhuman level of self-control
>to limit comments to grammar or content inaccuracies. It is probably OK
>not to be a content expert, because your future customers probably
>aren't either.
>Most editors of my acquaintance have evolved beyond these base urges
>to rework in their own image. This may be because <I am sure> one of
>the job requirements for editor is tolerance, acceptance, and
>understanding that there is more than one way to describe a cat (notice
>the politically correct change to an idiom).
>Good luck to all writers who must review other writers
>and good luck to all writers who must be reviewed by other writers.
Where I work, the writers review each other's work (along with
the project leader, who is usually a programmer). I often find
myself having the opposite problem that Judith describes. I tend
to focus on grammar or content inaccuracies. This tendency
leaves the original writer's style intact. The problem is that
sometimes a complete re-write *is* needed. The result is text
that has correct grammar and content but does not read very well.
Have I truly done my colleague a service? Perhaps, but not as
much as I could have. To solve this problem, we often have two
writers review another's work.
On those occasions when I actually re-write someone's work, I try
to explain my reasons for doing so. Then I leave it for them to
be the final judge; they decide to accept or reject my input.
BTW, once pride is put aside, I find that reviews by my fellow
writers are extremely helpful, especially when accompanied by
well-developed explanations.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Dave Meek
