[M. Eversberg II]

This is my first release of this article. I started working on it bit by bit a few weeks ago, and have just uploaded it on File Front. I have limited experience writing papers like this (school being a joke and all) so any sort of input on formatting, content and the like are appreciated.

Without further adieu: Click here to download the file.

M.

[Glennan Carnie]

Michael

This is a good first attempt, but it is clear you are not used to writing this kind of document:

1) Don't use big words when small words will do. Use simple, short sentences in preference to long, complicated ones.

2) Get yourself a good book on writing simple, plain English. Read it, understand it, read it again.

3) Get a good book on English grammar. Once again, read it and understand it.

4) Make sure you are clear on who your target audience is. Is this a technical paper, or for a lay audience? A technical audience are generally less interested in florid, emotive language - they want information and facts, not opinions and stories.

5) Spell-check your work before you release it. Don't rely on your word-processor's abilities.

6) Get a good editor to read through your work; not just a friend who has no document review skills

7) If you're going to include figures, refer to them in the text, don't make people have to hunt for them.

8) MOST IMPORTANT: Keep writing. It's the only way you will get better.

[Bill Tsafa]

Nice work Michale. I thought your article was well put together. I'm no English Major but I thought that the writing was very easy to read and understand.

[Gregg Sobocinski]

Michael,
This was a worthwhile read. Thanks for sharing.

Since you asked, I'll send you a personal message with some detailed suggestions. For the sake of this forum, I took a quick outline of what I shared with you, and made the following list.

1) Develop your own writing style. You sounded like more than one author at times.
2) Check the flow of your article within and between paragraphs. Don't just list information. Tell a story or argue an idea.
3) Form your sentences clearly. Rearrange sentences and parts of the sentences to put emphasis on the most important ideas in an appropriate order. (Simplify!)
4) Don't be afraid to offer your own opinions after reading all the other "experts". It's okay to add a paragraph of questions that you weren't able to answer which you consider important. This may lead future authors to build upon your work.
5) Scholars refer to images as numbered figures, and put detail into the figure legend as appropriate. (Although I didn't get lost following your images, and most popular media ignores this convention.)
6) Follow a good outline. Introduce what you're going to say, offer information about it, then summarize what you said while emphasizing your conclusion.
7) The myArmoury authors use an excellent template when reviewing historical items. Take a look at those reviews and see how much of it applies to presenting your information.
8) Take advantage of any resource you have, including school, to improve. Some of the best works of literature resulted from YEARS of edits and rewrites. Very little work is great in its first permutation. Editing is a major part of writing.

Many parts of your article were interesting and it left me craving more information. I suspect this was your goal: To share information and interest the reader.

Good luck,
~Gregg

[Luka Borscak]

I enjoyed reading it, nice work. I just think that your stats of the Thorpe falchion are not correct. You stated the max. thickness of 2.5mm. That same thickness appeared in Chris Artman's thread about his Christian Fletcher replica of the Thorpe but it was corrected later to I think about 5mm. I'll try to find the thread in question.

[Luka Borscak]

Here it is: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...;highlight
The quote below is from the third page of the thread.

[M. Eversberg II]

Ah, good point, I had that in my notes but to save time I copied it off a website trying to sell a Windlass falchion.

I've gotten some good feedback. The next rendition should be a lot better, especially with regards to the image descriptions (also credit on the Thorpe pommels are present in the original draft, but not in the PDF for some reason).

Thanks for the feedback so far. I plan to step away from it for a day or two and then go back through.

M.