Different Interpretations
31 Jul 2010 Leave a Comment
To cover the 3rd peer review of this class, I will say that I think my group member’s ideas and my ideas about the requirements of the project differs. I reviewed the instructions and believe that I am in the clear.
I responded to the questions/suggestions with the following comment. All comments can be viewed at the bottom of the original post.
I did send him an email about the idea on July 25 and didn’t hear otherwise. I can easily add it if necessary, but in looking at the rules it says not to mirror the other types of style manuals and to create our own rules regarding style. There is no mention of referencing our readings in the manual. It only mentions to add some type of an intro and use examples. Did I miss something?
Here are the instructions I found. Are there any other ones floating out there that I missed? *fingers crossed*
# Some introduction that contextualizes the manual. Both Strunk and White and Williams include introductions that explain their goals and purposes, as does the less earnest Elements by the Marquis de Sade. Your manual should also include such an introduction.
# At least five “rules” and rules of some variety. In other words, don’t stick with just rules that look like Strunk and White’s section on “Elementary Rules of Usage” or that look just like Williams’ chapter on “Length.”
# You need to have written examples of the rules. Rules in and of themselves are not enough. Be warned! Writing good examples is harder than you might think.
# At least 100o words of content. This includes the introduction, the rules themselves, examples, and any other supporting documents.
# Some “non-text” elements.
My draft is a few hundred words short, but I do not have my examples yet or the result of breaking each example. I wanted to make sure I was on the right track as I hadn’t heard back from Krause.
