Rejected for Grammatical Errors

[Raven]

Hi there,

I'm a little confused as to the reason for my latest rejection. I'm a native UK English speaker, so our usage of punctuation such as commas is frequently different to the US-version of the English language. The topic was loan modification, which is a niche topic that requires explanation of some of the bank's jargon and terminology.

The article shows in Word's grammar check that there are no grammatical errors, yet I received the following message from the editors.

"We do not accept content with gramar errors or problems with wordiness/redundant word choice."

(the mis-spelling is not mine. It's copied from the message I received.)

This kind of comment doesn't help me to understand the reason behind the rejection, so I was wondering if anyone else could assist me so I can edit the piece properly prior to resubmitting it.

Thanks.

[HayleyWriter]

Hi,

As I cannot see the article, it is a bit hard to help you out. Here are some ideas:

Sometimes awkward wording can lead to a comment on grammatical errors. If you use passive voice instead of active voice, you tend to use more words. An example of redundant wording is "end result" as in "The end result of the study was that gorillas are bigger than monkeys". You wouldn't need to say the end result, as the "end" is implied by the word result. (You cannot have a result until you reach the end of the study. A more concise way to write the above example would be:
"The researchers discovered gorillas are bigger than monkeys."

In the Updates for Authors and Author Exchange sections, Ed often points to helpful links, such as http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource. This resource on redundant wording is also helpful: http://www.fun-with-words.com/redundant_phrases.html.

If you want further help, I suggest you contact me via the email system and paste your article or part of your article in the email. That way the article is not shown on the forum and cannot be searched by the search engines.

Hope this helps,

Hayley

[BarryDavidson]

Raven,

I have a tendency to use the same word in a sentence when its use isn't necessary. I have to go over my documents carefully. Sometimes I also use more words than I need to when a shorter sentence would do the same job. I haven't had enough coffee yet to provide specifics, but it's easy to do - especially when you're trying to meet a minimum word count. For example:

"The red Mustang appeared as a red blur as it blasted down the highway at incredible speeds."

A shorter way:

"The Mustang was a red blur as it flew by on the highway."

Granted, this sentence isn't something you could normally use in an article, but I hope the point came across. Too many words can be even worse than not enough. If you've ever read any Dick and Jane books, it may help you with writing online content. The average internet user reads at a sixth grade level. The UK might be different, but we're speaking of averages. Long sentences cause them to quickly lose their interest. ("See Jane Run," also tends to lose their interest.) Sometimes it's hard to find that medium ground. We all like to write in the same way that we would speak to others. After years of trying to describe how to fix computer problems to people, it has become a little easier. Saying things like, "the SDRAM chips of your PCIe GPU isn't running in parallel," doesn't help most people. Saying, "The memory on your video card is shot," is an easier was to get the meaning across.

[Ed]

Hi,

Sorry about dinging you for "bank are." I try to be sensitive to UK differences, but failed in this regard. I have a source I go to (a human one) who sets me straight, and . . . he did. However, "bank is," would be correct anywhere, and "bank are" will sound odd to a USA audience.

"Proceed with proceedings" is simply wordy and redundant.

Authors who write for CC should never rely on grammar checkers. If a piece has been rejected for redundant wording or wordiness, the author must ask himself, "Where can I say what I'm trying to say better/more clearly/with fewer words or without repeating myself?"

Thanks,
Ed

[Raven]

Thanks so much for the clarification. I work hard to write using the US-version of English for all my articles, but I do sometimes tend to slip into UK English grammar usages unintentionally. This can often mean our way of talking sounds a lot more formal than the more conversational style of the US. I'll have to learn to make my sentences less formal and more abbreviated to seem more relaxed.

I can't locate the reference you gave with regard to 'bank are', although I do have two instances where I've written 'banks are' in the article and another instance where I've written 'Some things you could discuss with your bank are...'

In this second example, the portion 'bank are' is complete as per the remainder of the sentence structure.

I'll be sure to keep these things in mind for future articles. Obviously I don't want my account terminated for things I can learn!

Thanks
Raven

[Ed]

Raven,

We've both learned from this situation. Sorry about the confusion.

Ed

[Raven]

Thank you Ed. I've just submitted a further five articles that I realize are likely to contain some UK grammar usages. I'll edit these before you get to them and hope I've got them right according to your guidelines. I really don't need a third strike against me for something like this when I've referred so many writers to this great service already! That would be a shame.

Thanks again :)

[Ed]

CC doesn't have an issue with UK English. And unless the phrase is vernacular, it usually doesn't trip me up. I do read . . . on occasion. On the other hand, many writers here incorrectly refer to singular entities with the plural pronoun, which is a related issue. One way to get around this is to say, "Staff members at the bank are . . .They . . . "