User talk:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing/Archive 1 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony1/Redundancy_exercises:_removing_fluff_from_your_writing/Archive_1

This is an archive of past discussions with User talk:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

It should be mention that it requires full copyedit, and not just the removal of one word. Since I skipped exercises 2 & 3, I was not able to find a solution by removing one word. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The explanation of the solution should switch one and four (don't want to give spoilers, hopefully you will catch my meaning). -- ReyBrujo 00:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference to Ghandi should be removed without a source. Who says he didn't just have a unique writing style? And which person, or persons (of an denomination), says obviously that writing, or speaking, like the way I'm writing now, right now, (with words all included even though they don't need to be), can't possibly, or probably, change or alter the outcome, or fate, of this world? (A.K.A. And who says writing like this can't change the world?). ;) Spawn Man 05:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Was done. Tony 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the more elegant edit be "These aspects serve to distort such elements of the architecture as structure and envelope."? Moioci 01:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these exercises - if you add more, how about exercises with a whole paragraph containing one sentence (or in harder cases, two) that need to be edited? Ruhrfisch 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel particularly dumb as I got hardly any correct. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I saw a minor problem with the page. You might not have noticed this, but since I have a slow internet connection, I could. When someone tries to navigate through the page before it gets fully loaded, the results of the exercises show up even when they are not supposed to. To correct this, you may incorporate a "display: none;" in the NavContent style. That is, replace all occurances of <div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left;"> with <div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left; display: none;">. Hopefully this will do the trick. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't get why you didn't apply the above for all the sections. BTW, for the overflowing problem, add height:4em; in the div style of those exercises that need it. Thus, it should look like: <div class="NavHead" style="text-align:left; height:4em; font-size:100%;">. The trouble is that this will be hardcoded for all browser settings. Since, one should prepare it for worst (800x600 screen resolution), those in higher resolutions will see unusually large box. This shouldn't be a problem. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't notice that you asked me if it worked. It did. I first tried it and only then suggested you to go ahead. You may apply it all exercises and forward it backward (to Andy) if you please. PS: If you want to simulate slow connections, simultaneously open over a dozen pages (preferably long FA). This would slow any connection and you'd be able to see what it looks like. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been bold and solved the overflow problem also. However, as you'd have seen, it looks odd in higher resolutions. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have confirmed that it solves both issues. However, I don't know how to code it so that it is adaptive according to screen resolutions. Forward it to anyone who needs it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony and Ambuj for the help. I'll fix it on my article also. AZ _t 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And for future reference "4em" can be boosted to 5 or more where necessary. Tony 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More than two-thirds of the workers have received some university training.

How about: More than two-thirds of the workers have received some university training.

"some university" is used on census (plural?) to distinguish between those who completed university and those who started but did not finish. --Maintain 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, here "the" conveys the meaning of "You know the workers I mean: you can identify them not right here, but somewhere around here in the text, or through common knowledge." Tony 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a solution for the white areas between each exercise? They seem to be inescapable if the images are to be distributed through the article. The question/answer boxes do need maximum width, by the way.

Also, I can't seem to control the size of the Mandela pic at the top. Tony 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've become a lot more shier than before in using words at all; perhaps more than desirable. ;)

QUESTION F: She performs predominantly in minor roles in a wide variety of low-budget and major studio films. 

I'm not convinced that "a wide variety of" is totally useless if "variety" qualifies an attribute other than the budget. Can you please explain? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"A wide variety" is so vague that it's not worth including here. I'd recommend either removing it altogether or replacing it with more specific information, such as "minor roles in low-budget police and hospital TV dramas and cinema productions set in comtemporary Australian urban environments". "Wide variety" makes me suspicious that the writer just meant "many" or "several" or "numerous", in which case s/he might have specified the number, at least. After all, we do want precise summary information in a WP article. Let me know if this doesn't convince you, and I'll think of changing it. Tony 13:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the above suggestion: be specific rather than use a vague phrase. When I posed the question, I wasn't thinking in Wikipedia articles' terms; I was thinking of its uselessness in the language itself. By the way, I'm a native speaker of Tamil which has no notion of a case traditionally and case markers are suffixal. I don't know the mapping between the markers in Tamil and the prepositions in English (if one exists). So, I'm never sure of my preposition usage. Is there a good tutorial for me? (Articles are a problem too, but I'm improving there.)

I have another problem. I'm not confident about my vocabulary even though I have a decent range. That's because, I only know the dictionary definitions, but do not know if a word is appropriate in a given context. How to overcome this? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say that vocab is the least of one's problems, but you're right, the subtleties of usage are often not recoverable through the dictionary definition. Best to read lots, and to mark your own hard copies with a texta pen so you can revisit particular lexical issues you may have at the tim. Fowler's quite good on just a small selection of disctinctions (e.g., "swelled" vs "swollen"), and at least got me on the right track about the need for precision. Tony 02:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

These exercises made me aware of redundant words used in everyday speech. I'm beginning to notice it in my writing immediately after going through the page. T REX_speak 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC) W

Music to my ears. Yes, the page succeeds if it has an impact on people's writing, and better still, their speech. Who needs to say "in order to"? Tony 02:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the exercices. That's appreciated, the images are just beautiful and make you feel at home. In the exercice 4, you have

QUESTION E: The territory's path of evolution has been a challenge for the government.

Shouldn't this become

SOLUTION E: The territory's path of evolution has been a challenged for the government.

effectively gaining 3 words?

Keep it up!--SidiLemine 13:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good thinking, and in many cases, just "challenged" would be better. But "has been a challenge" does convey the sense that there were other challenges too for the government. Tony 02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony: might you go further with the following sentence? "Has been the target of" still reads like filler to me.

QUESTION B: The military doctrine has been the target of both criticism and praise from a wide variety of groups.
SOLUTION B: The military doctrine has been the target of both criticism and praise.

I am thinking of "The military doctrine has [brought or produced or effected] both criticism and praise" (although both words do give the "doctrine" a more active role). Just a thought... –Outriggr § 05:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see my suggestion is not strictly improving redundancy, the subject of the page, so fair enough. –Outriggr § 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly could gain one word by saying "has been targeted by"; and four by "both criticism and praise targeted the military doctrine", althought the phrase certainly looses savor, and the emphasis is lifted from the doctrine to the comments.--SidiLemine 10:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps just "has received both criticism and praise"? Tony 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess "received both criticism and praise" is fine :). If it had been a person or an organisation, probably not, as "received" somehow implies (even passive) acknowledgement of the praise and criticism; but in this case it's the same. --SidiLemine 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I like "received". Simple wins again. Tony, you pointed out that "targeted by praise" doesn't make any sense, which I hadn't noticed, but you're right. My intuitive objection was and is that "has been the target of" sounds like word padding, but the other issue is: do praise and criticism have only one target? Changing it to "has been a target of" loses some rhetorical punch, which provides insight into why the phrase was used in the first place. Well, I think I won't analyze that any more. :) –Outriggr § 00:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One could probably find something to say about the military doctrine being a target; but I think we're arriving to the frontier of our subject here ;)--SidiLemine 11:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that solution, as "This commercial success" does for me not mean the same as "This kind of commercial success" _→AzaToth 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the larger context, it's not different, but I think you're right—as a stand-alone sentence, there could be a change of meaning. I'll change it soon. Tony 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I enjoy doing these exercises and believe they are very beneficial. The only problem I notice is that there are redundancies in every sentences here, which is unlikely to be the case in an FAC or PR. Perhaps another exercise can be added where there are for example, six sentences and only four of those need to be shortened. It is easier to find superfluity in these exercises because you are certain of it whereas you only half-expect it in an actual article. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea; I'll do this when I can manage to find time. My plan is to create a series of "advanced" exercises that have a number of less-densely occurring problems, but you're right, one or two here would be good. Tony 00:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I liked this tutorial - but I have some problems with two of the questions in section 4:

QUESTION A: He welcomed the move because it allowed him to indulge his hobby of big game hunting.
SOLUTION A: The move allowed him to indulge his hobby of big-game hunting.

I disagree with this rewriting. The second version does not say the same thing as the first. The second version does not tell us that he welcomed the move. He may have absolutely hated the move for dozens of reasons - despite the lesser benefit of allowing him to indulge his hobby. The first version tells you both that he welcomed the move as well as why he welcomed it. These are not equivelent sentences.

To a lesser extent, I have to complain about 4c:

QUESTION C: The end of ship-building had an enduring effect throughout the existence of imperial China.
SOLUTION C: The end of ship-building had an enduring effect on imperial China.

The second version says that the effect applied to imperial China - the first version did not. Depending on the surrounding context - some previous sentence might have said that shipbuilding in China depressed the wages of shipbuilders in adjoining nations...and the end of ship-building in China therefore had an effect on those adjoining nations throughout the existance of imperial China...in which case your rewrite changes the entire meaning of the sentence. The first sentence delimits the amount of time for which the effect happened without being specific about who was affected, the second version say to whom the effect happened without delimiting the amount of time for which the effect applied - not at all the same thing.

I want my two points back! SteveBaker 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejoinders:

Question A: The causality, expressed by "because", is itself the redundancy. The word "indulge" conveys that he welcomed the move.

Question C: I agree, and will substitute another example when I have time. Tony 15:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I must protest your response on Question A. The word 'indulge' only says that after the move he was still able to enjoy hunting - it says nothing about his motive for moving. If we read the second version, we are free to imagine that he hated to move - or that he had no idea that there was good hunting in the place he was moving to until after he got there. The original sentence contains the additional information that the guy was happy to move - and that the reason he was happy to move was the hunting and that he knew this before he left.

Consider the following paragraphs containing Question A:

• Joe was forced to take a job in darkest Africa with a huge pay cut, gruelling hours and no medical. He welcomed the move because it allowed him to indulge his hobby of big game hunting. He died of a rare tropical disease a year later.

• Joe was forced to take a job in darkest Africa with a huge pay cut, gruelling hours and no medical. The move allowed him to indulge his hobby of big game hunting. He died of a rare tropical disease a year later.

In the first version there is no doubt that he's happy to go because of his passion for hunting - but something goes horribly wrong after he gets there. In the second version we are allowed to suspect that Joe didn't really want to go - despite the hunting benefits. SteveBaker 19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK Tony 00:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's even the possibility that he has some kind of addiction to big game hunting, or some other factor that makes him rather not indulge in it. Personnally, the addition of an ADSL line to my office allows me to indulge in my internet obsession, and I'm going to have it removed very soon, or else I'll get fired.--SidiLemine 15:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent analyses of available historical records show why the European settlement of Greenland failed.
Your solution says:
Recent analyses of available historical records show why the European settlement of Greenland failed.
I would suggest:
Recent analyses of available historical records show why the European settlement of Greenland failed.
Or even:
Recent analyses of available historical records show why the European settlement of Greenland failed.

—  MusicMaker5376 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to nitpick about the same question, but disagree with the above suggestion. The "analysis" part is important, because the facts, contrary to popular belief, don't typically speak for themselves, which is why we have analysts, or in this case, historians.

My nitpick is that "unavailable historical records" does make sense (government archives are full of documents they won't make available to historians, normally security-related, less than a century old). In this context, you're probably right that it's not needed, since historians probably have access to documents on attempts to settle Greenland. Strictly speaking though, it implies that there are extant documents that very well could counter the conclusions drawn from available docs and thus add an air of uncertainty to the main claim of the sentence. I'd say "available" is probably misleading here, perhaps superfluous, but not redundant. Mind you, I sucked at most of these exercises and am just trying to redeem myself. :=0 bobanny 04:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobanny, I agree entirely with you, and will substitute the exercise soon. Thanks. Tony 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Better still, I linked it to this discussion. Tony 06:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Section 4f The adverb "usually" could be removed here. "The students train twice a week" is naturally regular, any difference from that (holidays or being sick) would obviously be unusual.

It's hard without the wider context, but "usually" is not necessarily redundant. Always train twice a week/usually do so. Different. Tony 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

'all' might also be removed. 'compulsory' conveys this adequately.71.161.201.251 10:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"All" is not redundant here. Tony (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"She mostly takes minor roles in a wide variety of low-budget and major studio studio films."

I believe the two studios were a typo? Your exercises really do help; good job. Regards, Psychless 17:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't know how the "two" crept in. Tony 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"She mostly takes minor roles in a wide variety of low-budget and major studio studio films."

Do studios only produce one type of low-budget films? What about comedies, thrillers, or dramas? --andreasegde 10:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that "a wide variety" is so vague as to be redundant. What exactly does it mean? Films of different genre (as you suggest), plot, cultural setting, language, length, mode (TV/cinema)? But I'll review this one and possibly replace it when I have time. Tony 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is only joking, but it might do: Kellog's :) --andreasegde 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In your own explanation you wrote, "academics seem to sprinkle their writing with these monsters." Do they or don't they? --andreasegde 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "seem to" to "often". Thanks. Tony 02:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It sound better to me to remove to be than to remove ones. However, since in the exercise we are looking for one word this is not the correct answer. Is the meaning changed removeing to be instead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that alternative; but as you say, it's probably best to keep to the "one word' theme. Tony 02:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. You typed "ellision" (w/ a digraph) in the answer section. I'm not sure if it's a AmEng/BrEng thing or a typo.

BTW, I find your style pages very helpful (in many cases, more useful than the stuff at the library). Keep up the good work. Cheers. Saravask 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a further redundancy, the second program in 'The program has consistently been the most highly rated program on British television.'. (Also, not directly relevent to this topic, is there a reason the American spelling is used about a British programme?)212.135.1.82 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you; how did I miss that? Tony (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ALSO (see it does have a use) most highly rated -> highest rated - kthnxbye :) 78.144.98.108 (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in the answer section, "program" should actually be elided and not just coloured red. ;)

BTW thanks for this - it formalises something of which I was instinctively aware - a "very unique" resource (*cringe* lol) ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.179.191 (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in these exercises, you've sacrificed useful nuances on the altar of redundancy deletion. In 1A, it is not redundant to identify "individual" political power, as a prime minister is also the rallying point for the collective political power of the office. (In fact, the tension between "individual" and "collective" power in such an office is one of the fundamental problems of politics.) In 5A, the statement that the eye of a cyclone is "typically" circular is qualitative and does not bound the conditions "usually" encountered, as the quantitative range of diameters does -- while at the same time, the diameters describe a comparatively wide range of structures that are not as concisely "typical" of a cyclone as a circular eye. Furthermore, the "typical" circular eye does not necessarily co-exist with a "usual" dimension in the 30-65-km range. Circular eyes may be larger or smaller than this range; eyes in the usual size range are not necessarily circular. Suppose there's no correlation between symmetry and size, and 70% of eyes are circular and 70% fall in the size range. Only 49% will be simultaneously circular and of the usual size; the joint condition is not "usual," although it's more likely than any other possibility.

Removing redundancy is a good thing; removing nuances of meaning may not be. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced 1A. Typically and usually are interchangeable, according to my dictionary. But I take you point about the inference that both variables are undesirably mapped onto each other in the "solution". I've removed the usually bit. Tony (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Actually, I think it might be useful to leave the typically/usually phrases in there, as an example of an apparent redundancy that should not be removed (and with an explanation as to why). Knowing where to draw the line on such cleanup is as important as undertaking the cleanup itself, and some "false redundancy" examples are an aid to that. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 05:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony1 opening sentence: "Redundancy, rather than poor grammar and spelling, is the biggest source of problems in prose."

TP: suggested edit: "Redundancy, not bad spelling or grammar, is a major problem in prose."

You mean like that?

Redundancy -- that is, repeating yourself over and over again -- is truly and indeed a major and serious problem in writing prose.

But they're good exercise anyway, and I like them...

Timothy Perper 00:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But you've changed the meaning. "Rather than" carries a slight sense that this is contradicting general assumptions, and "not" is just a little cut-and-dried, right at the top. I really do believe that redundancy is the biggest, rather than just a major, problem in prose. Tony (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're using too few words to carry so many implications. If you want to stress the surprising or counter-intuitive, then it could become

V1. "Contrary to what we may think, redundancy, not bad spelling or grammar, is the biggest problem in prose."

or

V2. "Your teachers yelled at you for misspelling and using bad grammar. But I think the biggest problem in writing is redundancy."

or

V3. "Surprisingly, it isn't misspelling or bad grammar that spoils writing -- it's redundancy."

In each of these, two points are being made. One is to avoid redundancy. The second point -- to me, it's distinctly secondary -- is that this conclusion might contradict general assumptions. Personally, I try to avoid buried premises (like the contradiction idea) especially when writing instructions or advice. Assumptions can distract the reader -- "Huh? I don't think anything about redundancy contradicts my general assumptions... should it? I mean, ah -- " And I'm off on a tangent trying to figure out whose assumptions these are and what, if anything, they contradict.

For example:

"In the cleaning of iron pipe in households, do not employ caustic acidic susbtances such as hydrochloric acid."

"Do not use hydrochloric acid to clean iron pipes."

Yes, the meaning is changed -- but does it matter? The real point is don't use hydrochloric acid to clean out the iron pipes in the boiler. The real point about redundancy is don't repeat yourself. Say it differently, use a different example, but avoid empty repetition.

Maybe there are subtle nuances about general assumptions and about what "cut-and-dried" might mean, but if they aren't the main point, then they can go by the boards until later, when they can be discussed more completely.

The issue is to think through the idea to its point and state that point as directly as possible. So V3 above is the best of the lot so far.

Timothy Perper 09:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• V3 expresses far too strongly the implicit meaning (of contradiction) in the existing version. I don't want to make a big thing of it, and it sits there below the surface nicely as is. Rather than diverging, perhaps you have other suggestions for improving the exercises (or the 1a page)? Tony (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we all like the way we write our own ideas... I like these exercises of yours. They're going to be useful for hopeful Wikipedia writers. One of my favorite examples was Twain's "Eschew surplusage," a wonderfully opaque way of saying Keep It Short. The only suggestion I can think of is to wander through Wiki finding *bad* examples, and then, upon changing identifying details, include them as exercises. Best of luck with a worthwhile effort! Timothy Perper 14:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That is what I've done ... Tony (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just stared at the answer to this one for about five minutes trying to figure it out... Firstly I was confused because the solution lists "Since its launch" before the "the second "program" can be ellided" when they're the other way around in the example, and secondly because the last two sentences are unchanged apart from being red- presumably some of it should be red and struck out but some should still be green? An interesting and helpful exercise nonetheless! MorganaFiolett (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the order of the first two items in the solutions list, but don't understand your point about the last two sentences—redundant wording in both is red and struck through in the solution. Tony (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing the entire text of the last two sentences just in red, with nothing struck through, however the explanation underneath seems to say that "Since its launch", "worldwide", "also" and "topics and" are redundant, so they should be struck through- they aren't. From the other solutions, the non-redundant wording of those sentences- "Coronation Street has aired in many countries, including Canada, Australia, Belgium and Holland, and has been translated into five languages. Its storylines have covered diverse themes, including death, marriage, divorce and murder." should be in green, which it isn't. Is it something to do with my browser, and I'm the only one seeing it this way? MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope so; seems perfect on mine (Safari). I'll ask others to check it. Does this happen in any other exercises here? Tony (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just that last one. I'm using Firefox, but I just checked in an embedded IE engine and it's fine there. MorganaFiolett (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a different reading to 5B: SOLUTION JAMES: Coronation Street is Britain's longest-running television soap opera, first broadcast on Friday 9 December 1960 in the Granada region of ITV. The program It has consistently been the most highly highest rated program on British television. Since its launch, Coronation Street has aired in many countries worldwide, including Canada, Australia, Belgium and Holland, and has also been translated into five languages. Its storylines have covered diverse topics and themes, including death, marriage, divorce and murder.

• For the second sentence I think the word "highest" is the definition of "most highly", the other change in that sentence is just a different way of doing it although perhaps less elegant (beginning a sentence with "It").
• In the third sentence I still find it a bit redundant if you change "has also been" to "has been". What's the point of the second has? I'm usually not very good with this though (it comes up in PRs and FACs of mine), so is there a reason against what I thought of? James086^{Talk | Email} 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking Noetica's opinion of the "highest" issue. "The program" is better than "it" (did I really substitute "it"?). "Has", I think, needs to be repeated or it's just too far from its first occurrence. I find this to be an issue with repetitions of the infinitive "to" and the future-tense "will", where there's a substantial separation. Partly a subjective matter, though. Tony (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to "(did I really substitute "it"?)." No, I substituted "it" and I was just commenting that I thought my own change was less elegant. Also I see what you mean about the third sentence, when re-reading it seemed a bit odd. Thanks for the quick reply and the great guide! James086^{Talk | Email} 08:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What does "serve to" add to this sentence? I propose:

These aspects serve to distort some of the elements of the architecture such as structure and envelope.

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Tony (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Could the "originally" be cut as well? The phrase "originally released" is used in loads of articles and always bugs me somehow, because I think it's implicit you mean the original release unless you specifically state otherwise (you'll almost certainly say re-released). Certainly for me the sentence reads no different without the "originally" in there, although I'm open to being told otherwise. Trebor (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tony (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just went through the tests - great work - though one can quibble on a few (especially in 3 - rewording them in novel ways)!! Then I looked at the sentences in this article itself and thought one could tighten them a bit... went ahead and did it. Hope that's alright.

BTW, you mention that this is necessary for good prose, but frankly, removing redundancy is important in any type of writing I can think of, and is of course the starting point for poetry!

But then redundancy is just a start. The key idea is to come up with good ideas that draw in the reader - like "you won't regret it!" Great page!! mukerjee (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Your changes prompted further improvements, while raising minor problems of their own. You changed the meaning in the second para; and you made me see the oov oov repetition in the lead to the first set of exercises. See if you like what I've done. Tony (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

couple more small changes. beyond a point it gets too subjective. e.g. I would rather have "These are all taken from FACs" than "All these short texts are taken from FACs." - which drops the semantic component "short" - but is perhaps easier. But then, I am sure you wouldn't agree. In any case, it reads quite fine as is!

Happy editing! mukerjee (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Partly implemented; thank you. Tony (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the exercises! They really help to tighten up my thinking when looking at what I write.

On the subject of redundancy, you will get some complaints about odd effects with the display in different browsers. To see what I mean, open up your article in Firefox and "View Source" (Ctrl-Shift-U). There is a certain amount of redundancy in "font colour" towards the end!

This is because you used the <font colour="xxx"> tag directly in your editing - but you never closed it with the </font> tag before you changed colour. Firefox will close it for you at the end of the container (<li> in this case), but then open it back up up again at the start of the next container. This continues cumulatively until the end of the page.

The result is that by the last example, Firefox inserts about 170 changes of colour before settling on black for the line: ""Topics" is logically assumed from the context;...". At some point, this will produce odd effects such as MorganaFiolett observed. If you want, I can go through and clean up the HTML by closing all the font tags, or I can leave it as an exercise for you in preventing redundancy! Thanks again for a great article --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing this out. I use Safari on the Mac and nothing else. Someone else had a go at the colouring ages ago to fix up issues s/he saw, so the xxx tag is probably that person's doing.

I'd be most grateful if you fixed it, in which case I'll bookmark the diff and check that my analogous exercise formats (links at the top) are OK. Tony (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done However, I would be grateful if you can check that it still displays as you want it. If not, shout me and I'll fix any problems you can find. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RexxS, User:Gary King completely changed my formatting in the Advanced editing exercises—superb. I need to apply that here too, and will soon. Tony (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose

For each play, it was up to her to she determined what sets would be required the required sets.

—Phy1729 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the "solution" already changes the meaning slightly; but I think "it was up to her" has a different slant from "she determined", don't you? Tony (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It does have a slightly more pessimistic tone because of determine 's connotation, but I think the change is negligible. Phy1729 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"It was up to her to" implies that she was bidden by someone/something to determine, not that determining the required sets was her choice. Or possibly it implies that it might have been "up to" someone else, but no, it fell to her. Tony (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the only way to decide is with context which we don't have, so do as you will. It is your page after all. Phy1729 (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe this one needs to be replaced. Tony (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I've had time to conduct the first major renovation of this thing. User:Gary King's creation of an "Editing exercise" template for a related set of exercises is helping to fix a whole bunch of problems. Readers who have pointed out problems above have, in most cases, shown me that those exercises needed to be dumped. Tony (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Now try another set of examples that have one word too many.

…

The B41 gold-nib fountain pen was originally released in 1966 and is still in production today.

Articles on Wikipedia should not contradict themselves. I guess you language-types are just not that good with math, eh? :p --superioridad ^(discusión) 00:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the Cristine de Pizane picture doesn't show up correctly on the Opera Web Browser :(.AlexTG (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: not only Opera, but probably all browsers. I binned the pic, which was not all that effective anyway. Tony (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)