-2
$\begingroup$

The edit in question. Fixing 3 different spelling mistakes and added some italics to make the post a bit easier to read and tried to clean up where the author was using quotation marks to refer to "see" as a word and where he used them to put special emphasis on the word (might have gotten one wrong after a second close reading, but I doubt that's the reason it got rejected).

The only reason I think of is both reviewers being from the USA and thus not being aware of the fact that 1) the user used UK spelling more often in his post than US spelling 2) metre being the spelling used outside the US.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Being from the US does not mean a person is oblivious to how English spelling differs in other countries. Kyle is a graduate physics student, he's certainly aware it can be spelled 'meter' and 'metre'. $\endgroup$ – JamalS Mar 9 '15 at 8:53
6
$\begingroup$

I rejected it for two reasons:

  1. The edits your proposed didn't actually improve the post, specifically:

    • changing " to '
    • changing "quotes" to italics

    don't actually make the post easier to read, they are superfluous changes.

  2. Adding italics to certain words that weren't in quote marks originally

Point #2 seemed to be adding your own flavor to Martin's post, which appeared to me to deviate from his choice of language, leading me to choose the latter choice ("clearly deviates...") instead of the Pranav's choice ("does not make it easier to read...")--though I was strongly considering this first one.

This had nothing to do with the choice of metre versus meter; it has to do with the fact that your edits were just considered to be not good ones by the two people who happened to review it.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ So, first of all the quotation marks are only needed when we're talking about the word 'see' and not about the action of seeing itself (emphasis is done with italics, not quotation marks). As I already said in the OP I did it wrong a single time (first line should have been seeing or 'see', not see), but the rest makes sense. Either way, as a reviewer if you spot mistakes in a suggested edit, but also valuable parts you should improve on the edit, not reject it. And if you're not in the mood to do the edit yourself you should skip instead of rejecting. $\endgroup$ – David Mulder Mar 7 '15 at 16:32
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I didn't spot any mistakes in your suggested edit, I thought the whole thing was simply not needed and opposite Martin's intent. I also didn't think anything was wrong with Martin's post to need editing. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Mar 7 '15 at 16:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Also, as someone who has the Steward badge in 4 of the 6 review queues (with no one having the Steward badge in the remaining 2 queues), I think I know how to review here. I don't need to be told how to do my volunteer job by someone who hasn't invested much time in this site while I have invested quite some time. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Mar 7 '15 at 17:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ First of all, spelling mistakes always are in need of fixing. Secondly, having a steward badge only says something about how much time you spend reviewing stuff, it says little about whether you're doing your job right, so that's hardly an argument to back up your position. And even worse is trying to attack someone because they haven't spend as much time on the site as you have. $\endgroup$ – David Mulder Mar 7 '15 at 19:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Edits are supposed to improve clarity of the post, your edit did not do that; end of story. You are salty because your edit was rejected; grow up. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Mar 7 '15 at 19:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @DavidMulder: If we, as reviewers, decide there are about as many valid as invalid changes in an edit, but decide the valid changes are worth doing, it would also be appropriate to choose reject and edit instead of improve. Reviewers are supposed to use their judgement and not supposed to blindly approve edits because they do "something" to fix the post. In particular, approving mere stylistic changes just because there also was a spelling fix is not obvious to be the right thing to do. As another frequent reviewer, I'd have chosen reject and edit, but never approve. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Mar 7 '15 at 19:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind I am perfectly fine with reject and edit if the spelling mistakes are fixed. I was just going by the SE rule that if you're making a suggested edit you should improve till you see nothing else to improve. $\endgroup$ – David Mulder Mar 8 '15 at 0:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .