|
The
Writing Process
Revising &
Editing Checklist* |
|
Take an Aggressive
Fault-Finding Attitude
Consider
whether you need to make major changes in your ideas, arguments,
organization, logic
|
• Am I
willing to attack vigorously my thinking, logic, and
presentation?
• Do I
recognize that I may have not accounted for audience attitude
about the subject?
• Do I
ruthlessly identify redundant passages?
|
Allow Incubation Time
It's
difficult to thoroughly critique a draft shortly after writing
it. Allow time before revising so that you will be more likely
to approach your document as your reader would.
|
• Do I organize my work so that I take time -- even fifteen
minutes -- between drafting and critiquing?
|
Assess the Communication
Situation
Because new
insights may have occurred to you when writing, evaluate how
your perception of your purpose, audience, and tone has evolved.
Have you changed your mind on any of these? Is your approach
consistent?
|
Purpose
• Looking
at the whole, has new meaning emerged?
• Have I
changed my initial purpose? What do I need to adjust
because of changes?
|
Audience
•
Has my idea of who the
audience is changed? Am I addressing a communication situation
involving two or three audiences? Is all the information
included that the audience needs to understand an event or
concept? Have I offended or patronized?
• Have I
accounted for what readers need to know? Are there terms or
concepts that need clarification?
• Have I
needlessly complicated the issue? Will readers understand how
precedents apply to the facts?
• What
needs to change to help audience better understand?
|
Tone
•
Have I established my voice
for this piece? Is there any place that I appear confused,
pedantic, irritable, stuffy?
• Have my
thoughts changed about the voice for this piece?
• Is the
tone consistent throughout the piece?
|
Check
Overall Organization
Readers
generally expect you to sift through all of the facts and
pertinent laws and state succinctly your interpretation and
conclusions.
Does the
overall organization of your document work well?
Will the
reader be able to follow the sequence of ideas?
|
• What is
my overall organizing principle? Will my readers understand why
I have organized my document as I have?
Would
another arrangement of the material be more effective?
• Are my
logical appeals rock solid? Do my supporting points follow an
effective, logical progression? What additional evidence or
reasoning can I provide to be more convincing?
• Have I
written a lead? Does it still work? Does it tell why my reader
should continue reading, what's to be found in the paper, and
why?
• Have I
written a conclusion that shows the reader that I accomplished
what I set out to do?
• Have I
provided the necessary forecasting and transitional sentences
that readers need to understand how the different ideas relate
to each other?
• What
changes in the format of my document will make my prose more
readable? Should I use fewer or more subheadings? Can I use
bullets or subheadings or lists to emphasize key points?
• Can I use
a picture, a graph, or a table to visually represent my
meaning?
|
Check
Paragraphs
Are your
paragraphs in a logical order and of appropriate length?
Do topic
sentences express the sense of each paragraph?
|
• Do my
topic sentences express the sense of each paragraph?
• Are
topics of each sentence related? Is topic flow consistent within
each paragraph?
• Should
existing paragraphs be cut into smaller segments or merged into
longer ones?
• Should
whole paragraphs be shifted in their order in the text?
• Will
readers understand the logical connections between paragraphs?
|
Check
for Length
Have you
cut out unnecessary substantive discussion?
Have you
cut clutter, redundancies and windy phrases? |
• What
information can I prune or eliminate?
• Have I
eliminated surplus words -- compound constructions, word wasting
idioms, redundant legal phrases?
• Do my
sentences focus on the actor, action and object of the action?
Are most sentences are arranged in subject, verb and object
order?
• Are my
sentences still too long? Can I divide some of them into two or
more sentences?
|
Check
for Clarity
|
• Have I
removed lawyerisms -- legalese, Latinisms, pomposities,
bureaucratese -- and replaced with concrete, familiar words?
• Have I
eliminated throat clearing?
• Have I
rewritten double and multiple negatives in the affirmative?
• Have I
replaced unnecessary nominalizations?
• Have I
removed passive verbs or justified them?
• Have I
removed noun chains?
• Have I
minimized the "there is" construction?
• Review
for grammar and usage issues, e.g.,
-
subject-verb agreement
- pronoun
references -- all pronouns
clearly
refer
to definite nouns
-
modifiers
-
parallelisms
|
Check
for Continuity |
• Do first
references to persons, cases, and particular things fully
identify them?
• Do your
transitions still make sense?
• Are any
references to something above and below still accurate?
|
Proofread |
• Check
spelling
• Correct
typos
• Make
style consistent-- Bluebook, California Style Manual,
PAI/OCRA Stylebook
•
Punctuate
|
Read
Aloud
Have you
read your document aloud to help you improve your voice and the
flow of the sentences?
|
Reading
your work aloud highlights problems with your voice, content
development, and grammar. Many writers mumble to themselves
while they compose, and many successful writers read a final
draft aloud to ensure that it is as effective as possible. Try
it. You'll be surprised by its usefulness.
|
Get
Feedback
A part of
making meaning, feedback is essential to creating
exemplary documents. Criticism of a document is just
that. Good critical readers are not impugning your character
or writing abilities. Instead, they are criticizing a manuscript,
one particular event.
|
• Be
careful who you ask to critique your work.
• Let him
or her know the kind of feedback that you want.
• Do not
argue with your critics or expect them to revise your documents.
• When
criticizing a colleague's documents, remember that authorship is
ownership.
• Try to
limit the number of global, general comments such as, "I think
the document is good."
|
© 2003 Benchmark Institute
Adapted from
How to Write the Winning Brief.
Frederic G. Gale and Joseph M. Moxley. Chicago, Illinois: American Bar
Association, 1992 and Lawyer's Guide to Writing Well. Tom
Goldstein and Jethro K. Lieberman. University of California Press,
1989.
Gale and Moxley
view revising as major renovation -- tearing down walls, raising the
roof, installing windows, even demolishing the entire structure.
Unless a routine matter, expect to toss paragraphs around, experiment
with new beginnings, chase down new thoughts and feelings, and even
discard the first ten pages of an eleven page document. True revision
asks, "So what?" and "Who cares?" and looks for places where you need
to develop or clarify your thinking. Goldstein and Lieberman add that
how you edit is important. You cannot do it all at once or wildly out
of sequence. You would not paint your house before you sanded and then
primed it.
|
|
|
|
|