discuss: the good the bad and the ugly
Subject:
Re: the good the bad and the ugly
From:
Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date:
19 Nov 2003 05:38:34 -0000
Message-Id: <1069220279.4046.79.camel@mysticchild>
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 21:24, Shuvam Misra wrote:
> > I would say anything that has been technically reviewed for accuracy,
> > reviewed for language (spelling, grammar, clarity), contains links for
> > readers to get more information, shows alternative methods to accomplish
> > the task, if available (depending on the scope), and clearly meets the
> > defined scope, would be indicative of a "good" doc.
> >
> > In other words, if you tell us we can do something by the end of the
> > HOWTO, we better be able to do it! :D
>
> Your criteria make perfect sense.
>
> I am the author of the Usenet News HOWTO. We (in Starcom) have put in
> non-trivial effort to write it. We know that there's one key section
> (about INN) which is incomplete, but otherwise, the rest of the document
> is in reasonable shape (we feel!).
>
> I would be very keen to know your and others' views about whether our
> HOWTO qualifies for a "good" HOWTO? We most certainly want to put in as
> much effort as is needed to make it so. :)
Now that you've posted here, perhaps some folks will be so kind as to
take a look and give you some feedback! We also have reviewers who
specialize in language reviews, who can assist you with making your text
concise and grammatically correct, if that is of any concern.
Tab
--
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)
