Performance 2021 chapter markdown #2434
Conversation
…/almanac.httparchive.org into performance-2021-markdown
tunetheweb
changed the title
…/almanac.httparchive.org into performance-2021-markdown
Put "the" back to the Core Web Vitals. I can see how it's used but it still sounded a bit awkward to me. However, to keep it consistent, I'm adding it back.
|
@jzyang thanks for the review - I had a few questions. Also, I think your other commit didn't make it into the pull request? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
General takeaways:
- I highly recommend you eliminate the "I" first person; first person is for blogs and opinion pieces and lessens the reader's trust in your work;
- Keep your lists consistent, if you use "were good" at the start of the list, use "were poor" at the end of it, and
- Of course, all these are recommendations, it's up to you if you want to apply.
Almost there. I think I was fraying a bit at the end, so I apologize if I seem a bit frazzled/curt in my comments the closer I got to the conclusion.
Yeah, I did a few different things and rolled back my changes when @rviscomi noted that you really don't have to take any of my recommendations as law. So finally landed on this review format that allows you to make the decisions for your own work. |
I kept the "the" depending on context. In most of the charts, you referred to CWV without "the". When you referred to it in the Introductions, there's only one CWV, there are no other CWV to confuse it with. The times I kept it are when you refer to CWV in context with CWVs in different years, so then it makes sense you say: This is the CWV for this year (as opposed to other years). You can keep it, but then you'll also have to do changes in your charts, and in your titles: i.e. High-Level Performance: Core Web Vitals becomes High-Level Performance: the Core Web Vitals It's really up to you. I went by your title and chart convention and deviated when I thought was appropriate. But I might have missed or incorrectly removed a few. I tried to be consistent. |
|
Thanks @jzyang - going to review them all now. FYI, first-person is recommended when giving personal opinions of the author - see style/author guide. |
…/almanac.httparchive.org into performance-2021-markdown
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a great chapter @siakaramalegos ! Have held off going through it until now but just did a complete run through and really enjoyed it.
I also did another editorial pass, including a spelling and grammar check (the best I've seen for any chapter in last 3 years btw - very little picked up!) and a few other things you might want to consider.
I think, given that, once those are reviewed, we can remove the "unedited" tag and go straight to full merge with this PR.
Well done again to all involved in this chapter!
OK. It's just super weird for me, personally. It just doesn't read that way for me for 80-90% of the time and then suddenly get this jarring first-person (I don't mean just in your chapter), is just glaring at me like the eye of Sauron. |
|
Most use of “I” in my chapter got changed to “this author” in editing. Maybe that’s the better phrasing and we should update the style/author guide? |
Barry's suggestions Co-authored-by: Barry Pollard <[email protected]>
|
@tunetheweb I think "this author" sounds pretentious like the royal we so I'd prefer not to. If I'm the author, why would I refer to myself in the third person? We still have first person plural with "we". |
Co-authored-by: Barry Pollard <[email protected]>
|
FYI, @tunetheweb changing your contributor status to reviewer since we decided Julia is the editor (listed from the start and prefer this to be one person), plus your review was more content than editing while hers was more editing than content. |
Closes #2148
Staged: