Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Checklist

Second commas

Comma rules are generally difficult, and this usage is changing in many informal contexts, but for "scholarly" and even journalistic writing, every American style guide that I've seen mentioning this supports the advice here. See for instance Chicago 6.17 ("Commas in pairs"), 6.45 and 10.30; The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, at "comma" (the last two paragraphs); and AP Stylebook, at "months" and in the punctuation section. Also see Comma#Parenthetical phrases. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC) (tweaked)[reply]

A little more on the two new points

The goal of the Checklist is to point to some fixable problems that are showing up often in history-related FACs and slowing down copyeditors the most. Occasional mistakes in word usage or punctuation aren't as much of a problem as mistakes that recur many times and mistakes that require the copyeditor to stop and ask questions to figure out what the sentence is trying to say.

"Because" and "therefore" and various synonyms are often used sloppily, so it would be very helpful if writers would check each of these words and ask themselves if that's really what they were trying to say. For instance, don't write: "They stopped making the ships due to the rise of a new strategy." You can do something "per" or "according to" or "following" a strategy, not "due to" it. And "because" and various synonyms are too heavy-handed and too easy to over-interpret if the cause-and-effect connection is obvious. Instead of "They stopped making the ships due to their poor performance ...", say: "Construction on the ships was halted after their poor performance ..." The unanswered questions here (which may or may not need answering) become clearer without the "due to": Was construction actually halted on any ships, or did they just stop ordering new ones? How long was it before construction was halted? If you do decide to keep a cause-and-effect word, check to see whether it's clear what caused what, and whether readers will be expecting one thing to cause the other; if not, then either less or more is needed.

In our best-written historical narratives, we have kind of a high bar for attributing states of mind, such as decisions, motives and emotions. It's doable ... but you need an unusually trustworthy source making it clear that the state of mind was both obvious and important, and even then, we don't do it much. Avoid "They decided to build ships." (raising the question: when did they start building ships, if at all?) Instead, say what actually happened: someone signed an order to build ships or construction began, for instance. It's a particular problem when the sources themselves "cheat", that is, cover up important details by using state-of-mind words, and then you have to use your judgment whether the source is giving you anything you can actually use. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional terms can express intent, but use them carefully and sparingly:

"The men angrily hurled themselves at the entrenched fortifications.": This raises but doesn't answer the question of what made them angry.
"After the loss of their commander, the men angrily hurled themselves at the entrenched fortifications.": This can work; "angrily" is a compact way to make the connection between suffering a loss and acting in a reckless way. An emotional term cues the reader that there's something exceptional going on, for an exceptional reason. But bear in mind you're asking your readers to trust that you actually know the men were angry, that is, you've done a good job selecting and interpreting sources (and not all sources can be trusted to interpret emotional states). Don't strain your readers' trust by using emotional language too often.
"After the loss of their commander, the men angrily hurled themselves at the entrenched fortifications, broke through, and decapitated everyone they found.": You've given the readers enough information here to figure out that the men were angry, so "angrily" is just redundant. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musing

Doing some musing on how to make this page more effective.

As a reply to "Where are you going?", you might hear "I'm grabbing my keys and going to buy bread." Here are some things you don't hear ... no one says these things, and if you don't check your writing for obvious mistakes like these, copyeditors aren't likely to keep cleaning them up for you:

"I'm grabbing my keys due to the fact that I want to buy bread" or "... in order to buy bread" or "... because I want to buy bread". (Those words are fine when you actually mean them, but if you wouldn't say "due to" or "in order to" or "because", then don't write that.)
"I'm going to go buy some bread after I grab my keys but before I have lunch." (Jumping around in time is confusing.)
"I'm going to go pick up my emolument and buy some bread." (Avoid words that most readers don't know, but if for some reason you have to use one, don't just link it ... also give some kind of clue to its meaning in the text.)
"I'm going to go get the keys off my dresser, then get in the car, then drive to the store so I can purchase some bread and bring it back home." (Unnecessary words reduce readability.)
"I'm going to buy some bread and purchase some milk." (It can be confusing to use different words to mean the same thing.)
"I've decided to buy some bread. I hope the store clerk wants to give it to me." (If states of mind aren't relevant to what you're trying to say, then don't talk about them.)
"I'm going to grab my keys and buying some bread." (This is wrong because it expands to "I'm going to grab my keys and I'm going to buying some bread".) - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Talk about chunking, deliberate misuse of language, and stream-of-consciousness]. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the big unsolved problems in linguistics is: since we've evolved to have a good intuitive grasp of all this stuff in speech by age 7, why is it that even accomplished writers so often seem to forget this stuff? No one says "I walked to the side of the house, then strode around the back and marched back to the front." But people sometimes write stuff like this: "He led the squad to a winning record, including a perfect record against Triangular Football League opponents. He continued to coach the team the next year, guiding them to a 5–2–1 record and a second consecutive conference championship. He continued to guide the Dartmouth team for the following two years, going undefeated both seasons against conference opponents." That's all trying to say that they had a 2–0–0 conference record for 4 years straight.[1] - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More on cause-and-effect words

This was a message I just left on Sasata's talk page, it explains the point a bit more: [2]. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XVII Tranche Project Audit

reviewed Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]