User talk:RelHistBuff/sandbox

Wordiness
Wordiness is probably your worst writing "sin". It manifests itself as convoluted sentences, unnecessary words and phrases, and passive constructions.
 * Example 1: John Calvin was a French theologian during the Protestant Reformation who expounded the system of Christian theology called reformed theology and later referred to as Calvinism because of his significant influence.
 * Current revision: John Calvsin was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation.
 * Analysis: This is the first sentence of the article - always keep that in your mind. It has to encapsulate Calvin for people who know absolutely nothing about religion or history. I mean nothing. So, for example, look at the first sentence of Introduction to general relativity - GR is a "theory of gravitation". That's it. Somewhere, some physicist is screaming. But, to begin with, that is enough, particularly since we non-physicists rarely understand the either word "theory" or "gravitation"! That is what the first sentence of Calvin needed to be like. The current revision is better because it cuts down on the wordy structures (note new placing of the wrod "influence") and focuses the sentence on the most important facts about him.
 * Item 1: First sentence should be concise and to-the-point.


 * Example 2: The form of the book was the model for his commentaries that were to follow
 * Current revision: The book was a model for his later commentaries
 * Analysis: "form of" repeats the idea of "model"; "that were to follow" can be expressed using one word - "later" - Without these extra words, the essence of the sentence comes through much more clearly. Wordiness obstructs meaning because readers become lost in the tangled thicket of your verbose prose. :)
 * Item 2: Avoid wordy constructs.


 * Example 3:  With the death of Servetus, Calvin was being acclaimed as the defender of the faith.
 * Current revision: After the death of Servetus, Calvin was acclaimed a defender of Christianity, but his ultimate triumph over the libertines was still two years away.
 * Analysis: The new version better situates events in time "after the death of..." (also preposition issue listed below) and it helpfully contrasts the issues presented in the previous section with the issues to come. The initial version was wordy because of its use of the "being" construction, something we always try to avoid. The new version is also better because it is more specific - "defender of Christianity" rather than "defender of the faith" (diction issue).
 * Item 3:


 * Example 4:  In autumn 1558, Calvin became quite ill with a fever.
 * Current revision: In autumn 1558, Calvin became ill with a fever.
 * Analysis: "quite" adds nothing to the sentence - These kinds of adverbs can usually be omitted without a loss of meaning.
 * Item 4:Watch out for those extra words that do not contribute anything.

Active voice

 * Example 1: His final years were marked by persistent promotion for the Reformation both within the city of Geneva and throughout Europe.
 * Current revision: He spent his final years promoting the Reformation both within Geneva and throughout Europe.
 * Analysis: There is no need for the passive here. We use the passive voice to de-emphasize the agent, but in this case we want to emphasize Calvin's actions. In general, passive constructions end up being wordier as well, as this one is. Although this sentence loses the idea of "persistence", we have to ask ourselves how necessary that idea is in the lead. In my opinion, such details should be left to the article.


 * Example 2: Polemics were exchanged between the Lutheran and Reformed branches of the Reformation movement and Calvin participated actively.
 * Current revision: Calvin actively participated in the polemics that were exchanged between the Lutheran and Reformed branches of the Reformation movement.
 * Analysis: Again, the change to active voice reduces the wordiness.

Grammar
If you look closely enough at everyone's writing, a whole host of grammar errors will start to appear. The key to fixing these is to be aware of which errors you most routinely make.


 * Example 1: Scholars have argued on the interpretation of this account, but it is agreed that his conversion corresponded with his break from the Roman church.
 * Current revision: Scholars have argued about the precise interpretation of this statement, but it is agreed that his conversion corresponded with his break from the Roman Catholic Church.
 * Analysis: Many of your prepositions sound awkward or are just plain incorrect. I was looking for some websites about prepositions but they all just looked horribly insulting. I'll keep looking around.


 * Example 2: For the first time, the lawyer-theologian took up pastoral duties such as baptisms, weddings, and conducting church services.
 * Current revision: For the first time, the lawyer-theologian took up pastoral duties such as baptisms, weddings, and church services.
 * Analysis: Parallel construction - items in a series need to match grammatically and structurally. In the first sentence we have a noun, another noun, followed by a verbal participle, adjective, and a noun. In the second, we have three nouns in a row (the adjective doesn't really count - don't ask me why).


 * Example 3: This posed a dilemma for the libertines, so on 21 August the council decided to write to other Swiss churches for their opinion, thus mitigating the responsibility for the final decision.
 * Current revision: This posed a dilemma for the libertines, so on 21 August the council decided to write to other Swiss churches for their opinions, thus mitigating their own responsibility for the final decision.
 * Analysis: I changed this to "opinions" because I assumed each Swiss church would send its own individual opinion - "their opinions". If the Swiss churches sent one opinion collectively, it would be "their opinion".


 * Example 4: By then, many of the French refugees were given citizenship and with their support, Calvin's partisans overwhelmed Perrin's Genevan supporters in the elections.
 * Current revision: By then, many of the French refugees had been granted citizenship and with their support, Calvin's partisans elected the majority of the syndics and the councillors.
 * Analysis: Verb tense - this is the past perfect. (I should note that this was not an isolated mistake.)


 * Example 5:  The first statement in the Institutio acknowledges its central theme. It states that the whole sum of our wisdom consists of two parts:
 * Current revision: The first statement in the Institutes acknowledges its central theme. It states that the sum of human wisdom consists of two parts
 * Analysis: Generally, we do not write in the first-person but rather in the third-person. It is more formal.

Diction

 * Example 1: The synod in Zürich placed most of the blame on Calvin for not being sympathetic enough toward the people of Geneva, but it asked Bern to mediate in order to get the ministers restored.
 * Current revision: The synod in Zürich placed most of the blame on Calvin for not being sympathetic enough toward the people of Geneva. However, it asked Bern to mediate with the aim of restoring the ministers.
 * Analysis: We try to avoid using "get". It is usually unnecessary and it is vague. It is best to use a more precise verb.


 * Example 2: After some losses before the council, Calvin was beaten and on 24 July 1553 he asked the council to be allowed to resign.
 * Current revision: After some losses before the council, Calvin believed he was defeated; on 24 July 1553 he asked the council to allow him to resign.
 * Analysis: In choosing your diction, you must consider your audience. In science-related articles, for example, jargon must be avoided or explained. Here we have to ask ourselves, are readers likely to be confused? The original sentence contained some ambiguity. It could conceivably mean that Calvin was literally beaten. There are other instances of physical violence in this article, so I thought it best to change the word to avoid that confusion.


 * Example 3: He had always insisted that the Consistoire retained the power of excommunication despite the council's past decision to take away that power.
 * Current revision: He had always insisted that the Consistory retain the power of excommunication, despite the council's past decision to take it away.
 * Analysis: Try to use more pronouns - there is no need to repeat "power" here - it sounds inelegant.


 * Example 4: He also pointed out that the book should be read in parallel with his commentaries.
 * Current revision: He intended that the book be used as a summary of his views on Christian theology and that it be read in conjunction with his commentaries.
 * Analysis: This sentence has obviously caused some controversy, but what I want to point out here is the word "parallel". Did Calvin really mean that the words should be read in parallel? That has a very specific meaning. I changed it to the more likely "in conjunction". It is important to pick precise words.


 * Example 5: Throughout the version of the article I initially read, there was sexist language. We no longer use "man" or "mankind" to refer to all of humanity. We use "human", "humanity", "people", etc. We make the distinction when the writer does. So, for example, when Calvin differentiates between men and women, so would we. (Note: This is actually part of the MOS.)