# Proofreading?



## Loob

Requests for proofreading are prohibited.

But what is proofreading?

Is one sentence OK? Are two sentences OK?

Is is OK to ask "is there a better way to say X?" while it is not OK to ask "is the following correct?"

Is it OK to post sections of a longer text, sentence by sentence, and ask a specific question about each of them?

I find this whole area really difficult


----------



## Outsider

In the past, we had users asking us to help them correct (or occasionally to translate!) whole paragraphs. It can be interesting, but it's very time-consuming, and it's cheating if it happens to be part of an assignment that they're supposed to do for themselves.

See here a recent discussion of this topic.


----------



## Loob

What about people who ask "Can I say as follows?"

I'm sorry to be boring, but this issue really flummoxes me.


----------



## Rayines

Loob said:


> What about people who ask "Can I say as follows?"
> 
> I'm sorry to be boring, but this issue really flummoxes me.


Hello Loob: Most of requests are like that. I don't think there's any problem .


----------



## Loob

Thanks, Rayines.

So when does it become problematical?  One sentence? Two sentences? Two pages?....


----------



## Bocha

Loob said:


> So when does it become problematical? One sentence? Two sentences? Two pages?....


 
This is what the rules state:



> *Homework and proofreading warning* (sticky at the forum top)
> • Please do not publish essays, resumes, cover letters or texts that are longer than 130 words in Spanish (100 in English) for their translation or revision without explaining what specific parts (syntax, terms, etc) you have questions or doubts with. You have to open a new thread for each question.


 
and by the way, thank you, *flummox*... I learnt a new one


----------



## kittykate

> *Homework and proofreading warning* (sticky at the forum top)
> • Please do not publish essays, resumes, cover letters or texts that are longer than 130 words in Spanish (100 in English) for their translation or revision without explaining what specific parts (syntax, terms, etc) you have questions or doubts with. You have to open a new thread for each question.


 
So, what is the problem with this?

True, it's longer (272 words), but the specific parts with questions or doubts are clearly highlighted.
If we shouldn't do other people's homework (and knowing Alex that was not the case) or help them misrepresent their knowledge of a foreign language (which, once again, was not the case), why would it be ok to split that text into three parts but it's not ok to review it as a whole?

I still don't get it, sorry.

caterina


----------



## jann

Hello Kittykate, 

I do not moderate the Italian forums, but we would not accept that post on the French forums either because it violates rule 10:  each highlighted portion is a separate question involving totally different matters of grammar, vocabulary, syntax, etc.   Therefore each one belongs in a separate thread.  If we tried to discuss and explain each problem/correction in detail, the thread would become a tangled mess of confusing cross-posts about different issues... none of which would be well-represented by the thread title, so people searching the forums in the future for information on any of the issues discussed would be unlikely to read the thread, even if the explanations were very good.

Since the questions and doubts are indeed very specific and have been carefully explained, there would be (in my mind) no problem in splitting this post up into several different threads.  Each thread would have the original Italian keyword in the title to represent the word or expression that was causing a problem (rule 4).  The body of each message would contain a short portion of the original text + translation, but only enough to provide context for the particular question.  

Does this make sense? 

Jann
Member and Moderator (French)


----------



## kittykate

Hi jann,

you do make a lot of sense, thank you 

This 



> If we tried to discuss and explain each problem/correction in detail, the thread would become a tangled mess of confusing cross-posts about different issues... none of which would be well-represented by the thread title, so people searching the forums in the future for information on any of the issues discussed would be unlikely to read the thread, even if the explanations were very good.


 
is a very sensible explanation, but still... (I am stubborn )

This thread was allowed in IE just a little over a year ago. As you can see, the title doesn't match the content (something like _passato remoto vs. imperfetto_ would better represent it) and there was actual proofreading involved.
Try posting something like that now 

I can still see no harm in allowing a little more in-depth analysis of a shorter/longer extract. 
But I am almost giving up. I don't think we're going anywhere. I said most of what I had to say in the other thread. 

Again, though, if proofreading does not serve the purpose of Our Almighty Dictionary, why can't we have a separate forum, in the Additional Forums section, which is not for anybody else's reference but our own -- us, the foreros who would like to have such a forum and who would still go on posting in any other, as we do now.

Ask any forer@ what (s)he likes most about WRF: they'll tell you the answers they get, how fast they get them, and the nice people around the forum.
Some of these nice people would like to do some proofreading, from time to time. 

caterina


----------



## Loob

kittykate said:


> Some of these nice people would like to do some proofreading, from time to time.


 
Caterina, my question wasn't about wanting a proofreading forum - there's another thread on that. It was - and still is - about trying to understand the current rules.



Bocha said:


> This is what the rules state:


 
Bocha: I think these limits apply to the English/Spanish forums only? 



I'm glad you liked "flummoxed"!


----------



## fenixpollo

Loob said:


> Bocha: I think these limits apply to the English/Spanish forums only?


 That's correct. You started by saying that proofreading is prohibited, which isn't accurate. In the Spanish-English forums, it's allowed -- with conditions.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fenixpollo makes an important point: proofreading is not prohibited, but it is subject
to conditions, which vary among monolingual and translation forums.  In English Only, for example, the conditions are detailed here:

<  READ ME FIRST - Forum rules, common questions, and resources.  >

There is a section about proofreading:


*— Proofreading/ Text for Correction*

In that forum there is no limit to the amount of text to review, but there is a strict requirement for specific questions.  Both thread starters and those who would respond are reminded that the forum does not offer general text editing and rewriting.


----------



## kittykate

Ok, so, given that WR Rule 18 only says 


> These forums do not provide free schoolwork. If you want help with a school assignment, you are required to do your own work first. Then, and only then, may you post it with a request for help with specific doubts.


 
we have this in SE


> *Homework and proofreading warning / Alerta contra correcciones de deberes y textos extensos*


 
this in FE


> *Proofreading/rewriting policy / Règle concernant la correction et la relecture*


 
and this in EO


> *Proofreading - Text for Correction*


 
Can someone tell me where I can find the equivalent rule in IE, please? 

caterina


----------



## Paulfromitaly

kittykate said:


> Can someone tell me where I can find the equivalent rule in IE, please?
> 
> caterina



There's no equivalent written rule in EN - IT so far (we may post a new rule soon): we still haven't found a satisfying way to set a text length limit, however, as you already know, threads like Alex's ones are not allowed any more.


----------

