Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Copy-editing essentials

Feedback on how to improve the "Copy-editing essentials" course is welcome here. Tony (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A great guide, as always. Do you mind if I try my hand at adapting it to suit the WP:FILM membership? I think our own version would be useful. Steve ^T • C 15:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means, Steve. Let me know if you need help. Tony (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I've thrown together a very rough version, which for now just swaps the MilHist examples for film ones, though I've added a new section on crafting concise "Plot" sections. Any comments or suggestions you might have would of course be appreciated (though it might be better to take them to its talk to avoid clogging this page. And I know you're in demand, so I'll completely understand if you don't have time.) Cheers, Steve ^T • C 12:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "Even better?" section of the Redundancy exercise read something like

"A copy of The Times informed von Reuter that the Armistice was to expire at noon on 21 June 1919, the deadline for Germany to sign the peace treaty."?

Currently it is identical to the version in the "Where to look for savings" section. Dr pda (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up. Fixed. Tony (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing and the MOS

This quote appears in the MOS:
"In general, the use of contractions - such as don't, won't, they'd, should've, it's - is informed and should be avoided.

"Don't be daunted by their size: they are there to assist you, and gradually you'll become familiar with the issues and know where to access them quickly and easily if you need to." This quote appears in the, er, 'Ways to improve your copy-editing' section, under 'Style guides'.

You spend ages looking for errors and so on, then, like unwanted buses, two turn up at once; or in this case, in one sentence.

RASAM (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.208.144.157 (talk)

But here (and in the Concise version of the Manual of Style, I decided on a slightly different register (less formal, more friendly) to balance the instructional tone. It's not article space, and I think it works; don't you agree? Tony (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The exercise part

In your exercise sentence It was decided by Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, the commander of the High Seas Fleet, that another raid on the English coast was to be carried out. it is implied by the original writer that the name of the admiral (Friedrich) is a new, important piece of information. I don't think it is wise to write it plainly without using either cleft-sentence or paraphrasing (new information should be placed at the end of the sentence, or at least after the main verb).

My two attempts:

It was Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, the commander of the High Seas Fleet, who decided to carry out another raid on the English coast.

The carrying out of another raid on the English coast was decided by Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, the commander of the High Seas Fleet.Pokokichi2 (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think your first attempt is good, and your second attempt is not good. I call the distinctive, "marked" grammar of "cleft-sentences" thematic equatives. Tony (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response! It's great to learn about thematic equative as I never knew it before (also thank you for making that Wiki page). I guess I will be busy for a few days reading about functional grammar.

By the way, is there any way to fix my second attempt? I know that the sentence subject is clunky, it's probably better to avoid using "the carrying out of", though I can't think of any alternative yet.Pokokichi2 (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)