old-www/HOWTO/LDP-Reviewer-HOWTO/languagereview.html

394 lines
12 KiB
HTML

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML
><HEAD
><TITLE
>Language Review</TITLE
><META
NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.7"><LINK
REL="HOME"
TITLE="Linux Documentation Project Reviewer HOWTO"
HREF="index.html"><LINK
REL="PREVIOUS"
TITLE="Technical Accuracy Review"
HREF="techreview.html"><LINK
REL="NEXT"
TITLE="Metadata and Markup Review"
HREF="metadatareview.html"></HEAD
><BODY
CLASS="sect1"
BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF"
TEXT="#000000"
LINK="#0000FF"
VLINK="#840084"
ALINK="#0000FF"
><DIV
CLASS="NAVHEADER"
><TABLE
SUMMARY="Header navigation table"
WIDTH="100%"
BORDER="0"
CELLPADDING="0"
CELLSPACING="0"
><TR
><TH
COLSPAN="3"
ALIGN="center"
>Linux Documentation Project Reviewer HOWTO</TH
></TR
><TR
><TD
WIDTH="10%"
ALIGN="left"
VALIGN="bottom"
><A
HREF="techreview.html"
ACCESSKEY="P"
>Prev</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="80%"
ALIGN="center"
VALIGN="bottom"
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="10%"
ALIGN="right"
VALIGN="bottom"
><A
HREF="metadatareview.html"
ACCESSKEY="N"
>Next</A
></TD
></TR
></TABLE
><HR
ALIGN="LEFT"
WIDTH="100%"></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="sect1"
><H1
CLASS="sect1"
><A
NAME="languagereview"
></A
>6. Language Review</H1
><P
>Because writers come from all types of backgrounds, there may be problems
within the documentation that need to be fixed. Writers may be very knowledgeable
in their subject areas but not great writers, or they may be excellent writers but
not completely fluent in the language of the document. The language review addresses
these types of problems by focusing on language issues that make the document easier
for the user to read and understand. Some of the problems that may occur within the
document are poor sentence structure, grammar, organization, clarity, and spelling.
</P
><P
>If you are doing a language review, you should be fluent in the language and
the structure of the language. You want to consider both the logic and grammar of the
document. Your primary goal in a language review is to identify and correct areas that
could lead to confusion for the reader/user of the document. To this end, you can most
certainly use language and grammar references such as dictionaries and handbooks
when in doubt.</P
><P
>Although this review does address the structure and delivery of the language,
you should not attempt to purge the document of individuality and personality in an
attempt to make it "sound better" or more technical. Stilted, humorless language
and structures are not the goals here. Again, your goal should be to make the document
clear, unambiguous, and correct in spelling and grammar.</P
><P
>Items to evaluate:</P
><P
></P
><UL
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Spelling. </B
> Spelling should conform to a standardized English spelling of terms. For words that are new
to the language and not yet standardized (for example technical Linux terminology that is generally accepted
in the community), follow the most common spelling for the term.</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="note"
><P
></P
><TABLE
CLASS="note"
WIDTH="100%"
BORDER="0"
><TR
><TD
WIDTH="25"
ALIGN="CENTER"
VALIGN="TOP"
><IMG
SRC="../images/note.gif"
HSPACE="5"
ALT="Note"></TD
><TH
ALIGN="LEFT"
VALIGN="CENTER"
><B
>Note</B
></TH
></TR
><TR
><TD
>&nbsp;</TD
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
VALIGN="TOP"
><P
>Because there are two generally accepted forms of English, this review should
not privilege American English spellings over British English spellings, or vice-versa. For example, if the
author is writes British English and uses the word
<SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"realise"</SPAN
> you should not change the spelling of
the word to <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"realize"</SPAN
> just because you speak/write American English.</P
></TD
></TR
></TABLE
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Grammar. </B
> For the purposes of this review, grammar should address issues such as standards of subject/verb agreement,
pronoun/antecedent agreement, etc. One of the common and confusing mistakes made in HOWTOs is unclear pronoun antecedents. </P
></DIV
><P
>For example, to say, <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"You will need to set several parameters in the config file to make it compile correctly.
The ones you choose to set make a big difference."</SPAN
> In this example it sounds like the config file is what is compiling and
it takes a re-reading of the phrase for it to be clear that <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"The ones"</SPAN
> refers to the parameters.</P
><P
>Along these same lines, many authors writing for the LDP use smiley faces and exclamation points where they
would never be accepted in formal documentation or grammar handbooks. The general rule to follow
at this time is to leave the smiley faces and gratuitous punctuation marks in place unless they interfere with
the reader's understanding of the concepts being explained. The rationale behind this is to protect the more conversational
tone of the LDP documentation.</P
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Use of capital letters. </B
>The word <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"HOWTO"</SPAN
> should always be in full caps with no hyphen.
The document's title and section headings may follow one of two
conventions, but must be consistent throughout. Titles may either
capitalize only the first word, or may capitalize each word. In the
second case the only words not capitalized in a title are prepositions, articles,
and proper nouns which would not be capitalized otherwise (for
example: insmod). Other capitalization should follow rules of standard English.</P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Clarity. </B
> Judgements on clarity are sometimes difficult to make. One successful strategy in
evaluating clarity is asking the question <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"If I did not already know this information, would
the explanation be clear from this document."</SPAN
> If it is confusing to you and you already generally
understand what the author is trying to say, then there is a good chance that the explanation is
really confusing for someone reading the document for the first time. If you run across this situation,
and you don't really know how to correct the technical explanation, or you are afraid your changes might
affect the meaning of the document, ask for help from a technical expert. If no technical expert is available
or no one responds to your requests, note the needed changes in
the review and mark that these concerns need to be addressed in the technical review. </P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Organization. </B
> In some cases the document would really benefit from a different structure. You should address these
issues when they interfere with the understanding of the information within the document. If a document gives
background information after a procedure has been performed, this may well be too late for the reader to
fully consider the information he or she needs before performing the task. Look for document organization that might
confuse or mislead the reader. These will be the types of issues you want to address. Once these are identified, it
may be worthwhile to let the author know your rationale and discuss major changes with him or her.</P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Sentence Structure. </B
> To some extent, sentence structure issues are discussed in the grammar section; however, there are some additional issues
that are not grammatically incorrect but do interfere with the readers comprehension of the material. One of the most noticeable of these
is stacked prepositional phrases. Stacked prepositional phrases become a problem when the document's readability suffers
because it becomes less and less clear what the subject and action of the sentence are. In some cases more
precise descriptors are needed or sentences need to be changed from one long sentence that is hard to
comprehend, to two or three more easily read sentences. </P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Readability. </B
> This area is somewhat subjective. What passes for fairly readable material to one person might be confusing to someone
else. Because this is a value judgement you should be cautious when marking up an author's work for readability.
Realize when basing a judgement on readability that you might be dealing with preferences of style. At this point
in time within the LDP, there is no set style or stylistic rules that authors need to follow. In evaluating readability
you must consider whether or not the way the document is written truly interferes with the readers understanding
of the information. If the answer you come up with is <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"No, but it doesn't sound like I think it should."</SPAN
>
then you should probably not re-write the text to make it sound better to you. </P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Title. </B
>The title should be in proper title case. The general principle for this is that all words are
capitalized in a title except prepositions and articles (an article will be capitalized if it is the
first word in the title). The word HOWTO should be
in all capital letters. There should be no hyphens within the word HOWTO.
The version should not be included in the title.</P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Date Formats. </B
>Dates should be in standard ISO format, which is YYYY-MM-DD.</P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Uniform Use of Terms. </B
> Because the HOWTO you are reviewing is probably filled with new information for the reader, it is important
that the terms discussed throughout the document be uniform. For example, referring to a part or parameter in one section of the
document by one name and then calling it by another name (or an abbreviation that has not be explained) in another
part of the document is confusing for the reader. Making sure that terms are the same throughout the document
goes a long way in helping the reader understand the documentation. </P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Definitions of Acronyms or Slang. </B
> Terminology and language within the realm of computer technology changes rapidly. In reviewing documents
you may find that many of the terms that are being discussed are not valid words in any dictionary or technical
reference that you are familiar with. In this case you will need to search on terms and find if they are, in fact,
terminology that is accepted in the general Linux community. Terms that are less familiar should be defined immediately
following the first instance of the term. Slang should be replaced with more common terminology if the slang will
causes the reader to be confused by the connotation or denotation of the term. Remember that readers using
the document may not come to English as a primary language and, therefore, you should do your best to make sure
that the document is as easy to understand as possible. </P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="formalpara"
><P
><B
>Latin abbreviations. </B
>Avoid using abbreviations. e.g. (for example), et al. (and
others), etc (and so on) and i.e. (that is) should
always use the English equivalent.</P
></DIV
></LI
></UL
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="NAVFOOTER"
><HR
ALIGN="LEFT"
WIDTH="100%"><TABLE
SUMMARY="Footer navigation table"
WIDTH="100%"
BORDER="0"
CELLPADDING="0"
CELLSPACING="0"
><TR
><TD
WIDTH="33%"
ALIGN="left"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="techreview.html"
ACCESSKEY="P"
>Prev</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="34%"
ALIGN="center"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="index.html"
ACCESSKEY="H"
>Home</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH="33%"
ALIGN="right"
VALIGN="top"
><A
HREF="metadatareview.html"
ACCESSKEY="N"
>Next</A
></TD
></TR
><TR
><TD
WIDTH="33%"
ALIGN="left"
VALIGN="top"
>Technical Accuracy Review</TD
><TD
WIDTH="34%"
ALIGN="center"
VALIGN="top"
>&nbsp;</TD
><TD
WIDTH="33%"
ALIGN="right"
VALIGN="top"
>Metadata and Markup Review</TD
></TR
></TABLE
></DIV
></BODY
></HTML
>