User talk:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:57, 4 January 2014

Revision as of 14:12, 12 June 2019

Line 164:

Somehow the word "the" has crept into the current version of this example, as in "attracted support from ''the'' botanist and environmental campaigner". Is this intentional? I think it is unnecessary. [[User:Ke6jjj|Ke6jjj]] ([[User talk:Ke6jjj|talk]]) 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

:Ke6, thanks for raising this. I ''think'' the omission of the deictic "the" started in the US in journalistic and other registers, but that it's frowned on by US copy-editors in more formal text. I use it myself, and like it, but I'm wary in formal situations. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 09:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

== Quibbles ==

*"Montgomery's feat is often described as the most famous save of all time in an FA Cup final". I often see this sort of over-inflated wording. The meaning is no different if the sentence is changed to: "Montgomery's feat is often described as the most famous save in an FA Cup final".

*"Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game; this was mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery, who saved in quick succession two of Peter Lorimer's shots at the goal." There's redundancy here, too. All shots are at goal. So "Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game; this was mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery, who saved in quick succession two of Peter Lorimer's shots", or "Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game; this was mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery, who saved two of Peter Lorimer's shots in quick succession". The latter has better flow, in my view.

:Given that the non-advanced exercises include work on avoiding redundancy... [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 14:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)