Proof reading is not the issue. Proof reading will find grammar errors,
spelling errors and the like. Technical editing can be a real problem.
I have written things that when "simplified" by well intentioned tech
editors were in fact very simple to read and understand but just WRONG!
A. Einstein once said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but no simpler." The idea being there is a point beyond which more
simplification will lose important content.
While the audience for QST is not, in the main, technically inept they
are still not, for the most part, scientist and engineers either so
there is a bit of a balancing act writing to a level that doesn't loose
too many readers and still conveys the necessary nitty gritty of the
topic. Bottom line: There will always be readers for which some QST
topics are over their heads and others well beneath their level of
understanding.
Patrick NJ5G
On 2/7/2018 5:31 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
I believe that to be true of the editorial staff of QST. I too often
find myself disgusted by technical errors in QST. But one of the
authors of this piece, KE4PT, has a pretty serious EE education, and
is the current editor of QEX. Dunno about W4RQ.
IMO, the worst thing about the article is the title. And, I suspect
that the piece may have been the victim of excessive editing.
73, Jim K9YC
On 2/7/2018 2:34 PM, Tom Osborne wrote:
I think the problem with this article, along with many other antenna
articles.is they have nobody to proof read and see if this is actually
factual or not. I have seen many articles in QST that I read and
shake my
head wondering where they got their info from.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|