How can you edit someone's work without being overly critical?

The key to all article reviewing is to differentiate between problems and preferences--very few scholars are good at that. Most reviewers conflate the two, and identify issues with an article that is based on their own sense of how THEY would write it. Twenty reviewers would find 100s of "problems" that really are not problems. If we lean into what the author wishes to pull off, focus on actual problems while helping them maximize the strengths of their vision, our feedback would be far more helpful.

Retravailler le texte d'autrui est toujours délicat. Il faut déjà s'interroger sur notre mission précise, son cadre. S'agit-il d'améliorer le texte, et si oui dans quel but ? Est-on légitime à modifier sa structure si l'auteur a pris des libertés avec les règles de syntaxe de sa langue ? Je dirai qu'il faut toujours respecter la pensée de l'auteur (et donc deviner les intentions derrière les mots). à mon sens, on ne doit jamais insérer des éléments personnels, comme des opinions, sans les faire préalablement valider par l'auteur. Il est difficile de faire taire notre esprit critique. Parfois, il ressort dans l'usage d'un simple mot, trop connoté.

Editing someone's work requires tact and consideration, varying based on the nature of the collaboration and the individuals involved. In cases where collaboration is essential for content enhancement, effective communication between mature parties is key. This ensures an open and transparent exchange of ideas. Yet, in less collaborative scenarios, editing can be a delicate task prone to conflicts. To navigate this, initiating a discussion before making edits is crucial. This preemptive conversation helps address potential misunderstandings and sets the stage for a smoother editing process. By fostering a communicative environment, the editing experience becomes more constructive and less likely to result in tension or disputes later.

- Begin by acknowledging the strengths and successes in the work. - Frame suggestions in a way that promotes improvement rather than criticism. - Clearly identify areas for enhancement with concrete examples. - Keep the overall tone positive and supportive. - Provide solutions or alternatives along with pointing out areas for improvement. Tip: Approach the editing process as a collaborative effort to enhance the work, fostering a positive and growth-oriented atmosphere.

Respektieren Sie die schreibende Person! Das ist die oberste Regel. Sie verfolgen einen bestimmten Zweck bei Ihrer überarbeitung, machen Sie sich diesen klar: Geht es um die inhaltliche Genauigkeit, um den Stil oder um eine reine Korrektur? Konzentrieren Sie sich auf den gew?hlten Aspekt. Erl?utern Sie Ihre ?nderungen in Kommentaren und fordern Sie so Feedback von Autorin oder Autor ein. Bleiben Sie dabei auf Augenh?he.

Wenn Sie in den Text einer anderen Person eingreifen, machen Sie sich von Anfang an klar: Es geht nicht um Ihren pers?nlichen Geschmack. Stellen Sie diesen also hinten an und denken Sie aus der Sicht der Zielgruppe, die den Text lesen soll, heraus. Formulieren Sie ?nderungen und kommentieren Sie, warum Sie eingreifen, wenn es notwendig ist. Loben Sie, wenn Passagen besonders gelungen sind, fragen Sie nach, wenn Passagen unklar formuliert sind.

It's respectful and encouraging, which is vital in maintaining a positive relationship. I think it's a thoughtful way to ensure feedback is constructive, not demoralizing.

This is key when editing the work of new or less experienced writers. At its core, editing helps writers ensure their ideas come across as clearly as possible. We remove anything 'extra' and connect ideas in the most suitable (not always the most logical, but certainly the most suitable) flow. Budding writers often need a little push to narrow their focus, so asking a few open-ended questions is a great way to prompt the development of their editorial skills. Examples: ? Is there a more precise word than x you could use to convey the same meaning? ? Is the call to action prominent, specific, and easy to take? ?? Does this dialogue push the plot? Reveal character? ?? This is a pivotal moment. What's motivating your character's actions?

I agree with Lydia. Editing someone else's work is an art. It takes time, it takes, experience, and it takes practice. I know something about this because I typically "receive" more editing than I "give." Asking open-ended questions like "how do you see this paragraph driving our argument" are much better than "this argument is a mess." In all this, I've found face-to-face meetings to be a great way to communicate about the work product, for both feedback "givers" and feedback "receivers."

Here's a bit of advice that has always worked well: Avoid "I" and "you" when offering feedback to writers. The result is a more objective, less confrontational tone. It's also helpful to phrase comments and questions for the writer in ways show the editor is thinking of what will benefit the reader, and/or what the reader will want, need, or expect.

Es ist sehr leicht, jemanden zu verletzen, wenn man seine Texte oder seine Arbeit generell kritisiert. Um das zu vermeiden, hilft nur eines: Nachfragen. "Wie meinst du das?" "Warum hast du hier diesen Begriff gew?hlt?" "Ich wei? nicht, ob ich das richtig verstanden habe. Erkl?r es mir bitte nochmal mit deinen Worten."