Post History
I am working on churning out some technical documents, which are similar to a colleague's. I've copied some sections of his document as appropriate, and there are no concerns of plagiarism. His doc...
#4: Post edited
by
Monica Cellio
·
2019-12-13T02:38:28Z (almost 5 years ago)
I am working on churning out some technical documents, which are similar to a colleague's. I've copied some sections of his document as appropriate, and there are no concerns of plagiarism. His document, further in the review process than mine, has received some comments such as, "Good prose, but not appropriate for a technical document." I rather enjoyed my peer's description, and it was in fact accurate.My frustrated Googling led me to the question "[Can technical writing suck less](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/21091/can-technical-writing-suck-less)", which makes some good points to which I'll concede. I am curious though, **should review for a technical document require a rewrite of such "creative" sections, especially with looming deadlines approaching?** In this specific case, these documents are for internal IT documentation only, but I want to know the general case as well.**EDIT** : When I say "creative", rather than "fantasy" or something, I mean more like "eloquence", such as using clever phrasing or more advanced vocabulary, e.g. using "boon" over "benefit".
- I am working on churning out some technical documents, which are similar to a colleague's. I've copied some sections of his document as appropriate, and there are no concerns of plagiarism. His document, further in the review process than mine, has received some comments such as, "Good prose, but not appropriate for a technical document." I rather enjoyed my peer's description, and it was in fact accurate.
- My frustrated Googling led me to the question "[Can technical writing suck less](https://qpixel.artofcode.co.uk/questions/16460)", which makes some good points to which I'll concede. I am curious though, **should review for a technical document require a rewrite of such "creative" sections, especially with looming deadlines approaching?** In this specific case, these documents are for internal IT documentation only, but I want to know the general case as well.
- **EDIT** : When I say "creative", rather than "fantasy" or something, I mean more like "eloquence", such as using clever phrasing or more advanced vocabulary, e.g. using "boon" over "benefit".
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T08:31:20Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/35014 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
zr00
·
2019-12-08T08:31:20Z (almost 5 years ago)
I am working on churning out some technical documents, which are similar to a colleague's. I've copied some sections of his document as appropriate, and there are no concerns of plagiarism. His document, further in the review process than mine, has received some comments such as, "Good prose, but not appropriate for a technical document." I rather enjoyed my peer's description, and it was in fact accurate. My frustrated Googling led me to the question "[Can technical writing suck less](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/21091/can-technical-writing-suck-less)", which makes some good points to which I'll concede. I am curious though, **should review for a technical document require a rewrite of such "creative" sections, especially with looming deadlines approaching?** In this specific case, these documents are for internal IT documentation only, but I want to know the general case as well. **EDIT** : When I say "creative", rather than "fantasy" or something, I mean more like "eloquence", such as using clever phrasing or more advanced vocabulary, e.g. using "boon" over "benefit".
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2018-04-11T20:51:18Z (over 6 years ago)
Original score: 4