Proof reading: Failed

So this scan article (ISS temporarily suspend Cover Sheets for Eco-Friendly Trial) got read by people who are at least passingly literate (i.e. not me) over lunch and a few gems really shone through, specifically the clarity of this:

“It has also been noted that the students union used recycled paper (by evolve) but the Library does not, a trial of recycled paper was done in the library but not data was collected, there will be a two week re-trail where statistics will be collected for two weeks beforehand to create some statistics, if the trail is effective then ISS are happy to make the change.”

There was also a wonderful example of research and reasoning in this article on facebook

Sex offenders thankfully have been banned from using it and all other social networking sites

Now is it more or has Scan really gone down hill the past few years?

3 thoughts on “Proof reading: Failed

  1. lucrecia

    Strangely enough, I was making similar comments last Friday night as I read through a SCAN review of the Gunther Von Hagen’s bodywork exhibition over in Manchester. I actually had to read some of the passages out loud in order to get some idea of what the hell they were trying to convey. Really awful, awful turns of phrase.
    Don’t get me wrong – I’m no grammar Nazi, but reading shouldn’t have to be such a staggered, broken process. It didn’t exactly flow.

    …And this is coming from me!

  2. bodybag_pilgrim

    I cannot recall a time when I was able to read an issue of SCAN without, at least once per page, wincing at the horrible grammar. The high point was probably when an entire half-sentence was missing.


Leave a Reply