<HTML
><HEAD
><TITLE
>Linux Documentation Project Reviewer HOWTO</TITLE
><META
NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.63
"></HEAD
><BODY
CLASS="ARTICLE"
BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF"
TEXT="#000000"
LINK="#0000FF"
VLINK="#840084"
ALINK="#0000FF"
><DIV
CLASS="ARTICLE"
><DIV
CLASS="TITLEPAGE"
><H1
CLASS="TITLE"
><A
NAME="AEN2"
>Linux Documentation Project Reviewer HOWTO</A
></H1
><H3
CLASS="AUTHOR"
><A
NAME="AEN4"
>David Merrill</A
></H3
><DIV
CLASS="AFFILIATION"
><DIV
CLASS="ADDRESS"
><P
CLASS="ADDRESS"
>david@lupercalia.net</P
></DIV
></DIV
><H3
CLASS="AUTHOR"
><A
NAME="AEN10"
>Joy Yokley</A
></H3
><DIV
CLASS="AFFILIATION"
><DIV
CLASS="ADDRESS"
><P
CLASS="ADDRESS"
>jyokley@us.ibm.com</P
></DIV
></DIV
><P
CLASS="PUBDATE"
>2001-05-12<BR></P
><DIV
CLASS="REVHISTORY"
><TABLE
WIDTH="100%"
BORDER="0"
><TR
><TH
ALIGN="LEFT"
VALIGN="TOP"
COLSPAN="3"
><B
>Revision History</B
></TH
></TR
><TR
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
>Revision 1.0.1</TD
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
>2001-05-12</TD
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
>Revised by: DCM</TD
></TR
><TR
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
COLSPAN="3"
>Minor bugfixes.</TD
></TR
><TR
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
>Revision 1.0</TD
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
>2001-05-01</TD
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
>Revised by: jy</TD
></TR
><TR
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
COLSPAN="3"
>Initial release.</TD
></TR
></TABLE
></DIV
><DIV
><DIV
CLASS="ABSTRACT"
><A
NAME="AEN17"
></A
><P
></P
><P
>This document will help you review LDP documentation.
It includes procedures, tips and techniques to make the process easier.</P
><P
></P
></DIV
></DIV
><HR></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="TOC"
><DL
><DT
><B
>Table of Contents</B
></DT
><DT
>1. <A
HREF="#INTRODUCTION"
>Introduction</A
></DT
><DD
><DL
><DT
>1.1. <A
HREF="#COPYRIGHT"
>Copyright and License</A
></DT
></DL
></DD
><DT
>2. <A
HREF="#NEWDOCS"
>Reviewing Newly Submitted Documentation</A
></DT
><DT
>3. <A
HREF="#EXISTING"
>Reviewing Existing Documentation</A
></DT
><DD
><DL
><DT
>3.1. <A
HREF="#PICKING"
>Choosing a Document</A
></DT
><DT
>3.2. <A
HREF="#LICENSEISSUES"
>License Issues</A
></DT
><DT
>3.3. <A
HREF="#NEWVERSION"
>Working With the Latest Version</A
></DT
><DT
>3.4. <A
HREF="#PICKATYPE"
>Picking a Review to Conduct</A
></DT
></DL
></DD
><DT
>4. <A
HREF="#TECHREVIEW"
>Technical Accuracy Review</A
></DT
><DT
>5. <A
HREF="#LANGUAGEREVIEW"
>Language Review</A
></DT
><DT
>6. <A
HREF="#REPORTING"
>Reporting Your Results</A
></DT
></DL
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT1"
><H1
CLASS="SECT1"
><A
NAME="INTRODUCTION"
>1. Introduction</A
></H1
><P
>The LDP Review Project is a "working group" of the
<A
HREF="http://www.linuxdoc.org"
TARGET="_top"
><I
CLASS="CITETITLE"
>Linux Documentation Project</I
></A
>
whose goal is to improve the quality of the LDP's documentation. We are approaching that
goal from two different angles: a review of newly submitted documentation, and a review of existing documentation.
Both projects are at an early stage right now, so we are very much open to your suggestions for
improvement. </P
><P
>We have a mailing list established at
<A
HREF="http://www.lupercalia.net/mailman/listinfo/ldp-review"
TARGET="_top"
> <I
CLASS="CITETITLE"
>http://www.lupercalia.net/mailman/listinfo/ldp-review</I
></A
>.</P
><DIV
CLASS="SECT2"
><HR><H2
CLASS="SECT2"
><A
NAME="COPYRIGHT"
>1.1. Copyright and License</A
></H2
><P
>This document is copyright 2001 by David C. Merrill, Ph.D., and is released under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Send feedback to
<A
HREF="mailto:david@lupercalia.net"
TARGET="_top"
><I
CLASS="CITETITLE"
>david@lupercalia.net</I
></A
>.
</P
></DIV
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT1"
><HR><H1
CLASS="SECT1"
><A
NAME="NEWDOCS"
>2. Reviewing Newly Submitted Documentation</A
></H1
><P
>This review project will continue throughout the life of the LDP. The process will act as a front-end
quality assurance review for new documentation which is submitted to the LDP. Ideally documents will be reviewed
within one week of their submission to the LDP. </P
><P
>Coordinators of this effort will announce to the list or notify individual review members of new document submissions.
The coordinators will try to funnel documents to reviewers who have knowledge in the same technical area
as the documentation. If the reviewer is not a technical expert in that particular area and needs technical questions
answered, there will be a technical expert designated who will be able to address any
technical issues or questions. </P
><P
> Once reviewers have agreed to work on a document, they will have one week to complete the review. If they are
not able to complete the review within that time frame, they will need to let the coordinator know of their difficulties so
that the author can be notified of the problem. Because these reviews need
to be conducted rather quickly, there will be times when reviewers will be more able to accept review work.</P
><P
>When reviewing newly submitted documents, refer to the <A
HREF="#TECHREVIEW"
>Section 4</A
> and
<A
HREF="#LANGUAGEREVIEW"
>Section 5</A
> portions of this guide for the types of information to verify and correct.
As a reviewer, you will need to check the documents out of the CVS and make any necessary changes. If changes are
extensive or if the document has glaringly and fundamentally fatal errors, contact a
coordinator to let him or her know what the problems are. Once changes are made, the reviewer will update the minor
version number, submit the changes to the CVS, and send the original
author a copy of the source.</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT1"
><HR><H1
CLASS="SECT1"
><A
NAME="EXISTING"
>3. Reviewing Existing Documentation</A
></H1
><P
>This project will focus on reviewing documentation that already exists on the LDP. Our goal is to implement
a quality management program that makes sure we are supplying up-to-date, accurate, easily read documentation.
This process will be ongoing throughout the life of the LDP. Initially, we will try to review all documents currently
on the LDP. Once we have made our way through existing documents, we will schedule dates for follow-up reviews.
By continually reviewing the documents throughout their life on the LDP, we help make sure that readers have
the best experience with Linux documentation.</P
><P
>In addition to the primary goal of improving the quality of the documentation itself,
we will also be gathering data about the collection for storage in some sort of database to
facilitate the ongoing management of the collection. However, this stage of the review is still being defined; details
about the specifics and how this data will be measured will be added in the future. </P
><P
>Below are some general guidelines that you should follow before you begin reviewing existing documentation
for the LDP. Please try to have document reviews completed within two weeks of the time you sign up to review a document.</P
><DIV
CLASS="SECT2"
><HR><H2
CLASS="SECT2"
><A
NAME="PICKING"
>3.1. Choosing a Document</A
></H2
><P
>Because this process is just getting started, there are many documents that need review. The most
important thing is that you coordinate your work with the other
reviewers. To coordinate the effort, we have set up a mailing list for reviewers.</P
><P
>Notify the ldp-review list, which is currently housed at
<A
HREF="http://www.lupercalia.net/mailman/listinfo/ldp-review"
TARGET="_top"
> <I
CLASS="CITETITLE"
>http://www.lupercalia.net/mailman/listinfo/ldp-review</I
></A
>,
before you begin to review a document. We want to make sure your work is directed where
it is most needed and where it will be most useful. Of course, you may have a particular
area of expertise and that will dictate your choice to some extent.
You can ask on the list for an assignment, or you can select one for yourself
and just let us know what you're doing.
</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT2"
><HR><H2
CLASS="SECT2"
><A
NAME="LICENSEISSUES"
>3.2. License Issues</A
></H2
><P
>Make sure you have the legal right to work on the document. If it is licensed
under a free license that specifically grants such rights, you are fine. If not, you
need to contact the author and get permission.</P
><P
>If you do not plan to actually change any of the content, but simply report on
the document's status, then you don't need permission, regardless of license.
Of course, it is still polite, and advisable, to write the author anyway.</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT2"
><HR><H2
CLASS="SECT2"
><A
NAME="NEWVERSION"
>3.3. Working With the Latest Version</A
></H2
><P
>Make sure the copy you are reviewing is the most current.</P
><P
>If your document includes a URL to an official homepage, visit that page and see if it
displays the same version number. If you find the same version number, you are fine. If you
find a newer version number, write to the author and ask him or her to please submit the newer version to you.</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT2"
><HR><H2
CLASS="SECT2"
><A
NAME="PICKATYPE"
>3.4. Picking a Review to Conduct</A
></H2
><P
>There are many different ways a document can be reviewed, and you may have the skills
to do only one or two types of reviews. It is sometimes useful (and easier) to do each review as a
separate pass through the document; Your Mileage May Vary.</P
><P
>The following sections explain the various types of reviews we are conducting. Use these sections as a guide to help you choose
the type of review to conduct and to help you conduct the review itself. Again, when you post your review
choice to the review list, please specify the type of review you would like to be responsible for.</P
></DIV
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT1"
><HR><H1
CLASS="SECT1"
><A
NAME="TECHREVIEW"
>4. Technical Accuracy Review</A
></H1
><P
>Make sure the facts as stated in the document are correct, helpful, and on topic.</P
><P
>To do a technical accuracy review, you really need to know your subject matter,
probably as well or better than the original author. Use whatever other documentation is
available for your subject, including man pages, program documentation, other printed
books, etc. You might also use mailing lists on the topic, asking for third parties to
verify certain facts of which you are in doubt.</P
><P
>When doing this type of review, consider if the information is only valid for certain types
of hardware or software. If this is the case, make sure to note the limitations of the document within
the document, either within the abstract or as a note at the beginning of the document. For example, if the
solutions in the document only are relevant for one type or brand of hardware, make sure that that
limitation is defined. This will keep readers from trying to apply a certain type of technology to an application or
situation where it will not work. </P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT1"
><HR><H1
CLASS="SECT1"
><A
NAME="LANGUAGEREVIEW"
>5. Language Review</A
></H1
><P
>Because writers come from all types of backgrounds, there may be problems
within the documentation that need to be fixed. Writers may be very knowledgeable
in their subject areas but not great writers, or they may be excellent writers but
not completely fluent in the language of the document. The language review addresses
these types of problems by focusing on language issues that make the document easier
for the user to read and understand. Some of the problems that may occur within the
document are poor sentence structure, grammar, organization, clarity, and spelling.
</P
><P
>If you are doing a language review, you should be fluent in the language and
the structure of the language. You want to consider both the logic and grammar of the
document. Your primary goal in a language review is to identify and correct areas that
could lead to confusion for the reader/user of the document. To this end, you can most
certainly use language and grammar references such as dictionaries and handbooks
when in doubt.</P
><P
>Although this review does address the structure and delivery of the language,
you should not attempt to purge the document of individuality and personality in an
attempt to make it "sound better" or more technical. Stilted, humorless language
and structures are not the goals here. Again, your goal should be to make the document
clear, unambiguous, and correct in spelling and grammar.</P
><P
>Items to evaluate:</P
><P
></P
><UL
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Spelling. </B
> Spelling should conform to a standardized English spelling of terms. For words that are new
to the language and not yet standardized (e.g. technical Linux terminology that is generally accepted
in the community), follow the most common spelling for the term.</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="NOTE"
><P
></P
><TABLE
CLASS="NOTE"
WIDTH="90%"
BORDER="0"
><TR
><TD
WIDTH="25"
ALIGN="CENTER"
VALIGN="TOP"
><IMG
SRC="../images/note.gif"
HSPACE="5"
ALT="Note"></TD
><TH
ALIGN="LEFT"
VALIGN="CENTER"
><B
>Note</B
></TH
></TR
><TR
><TD
> </TD
><TD
ALIGN="LEFT"
VALIGN="TOP"
><P
>Because there are two generally accepted forms of English, this review should
not privilege American English spellings over British English spellings, or vice-versa. For example, if the
author is writes British English and uses the word "realise", you should not change the spelling of
the word to "realize" just because you speak/write American English.</P
></TD
></TR
></TABLE
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Grammar. </B
> For the purposes of this review, grammar should address issues such as standards of subject/verb agreement,
pronoun/antecedent agreement, etc. One of the common and confusing mistakes made in HOWTOs is unclear pronoun antecedents. </P
></DIV
><P
>For example, to say, <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"You will need to set several parameters in the config file to make it compile correctly.
The ones you choose to set make a big difference."</SPAN
> In this example it sounds like the config file is what is compiling and
it takes a re-reading of the phrase for it to be clear that <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"The ones"</SPAN
> refers to the parameters.</P
><P
>Along these same lines, many authors writing for the LDP use smiley faces and exclamation points where they
would never be accepted in formal documentation or grammar handbooks. The general rule to follow
at this time is to leave the smiley faces and gratuitous punctuation marks in place unless they interfere with
the reader's understanding of the concepts being explained. The rationale behind this is to protect the more conversational
tone of the LDP documentation.</P
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Capitalization. </B
> The word <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"HOWTO"</SPAN
> should always be in full caps with no hyphen.
Also, the document title should always be in title case. This means that first words in a title are always capitalized.
The only words not capitalized in a title are prepositions, articles, and proper nouns which would not be capitalized otherwise (e.g.
insmod). Other capitalization should follow rules of standard English.</P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Clarity. </B
> Judgements on clarity are sometimes difficult to make. One successful strategey in
evaluating clarity is asking the question <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"If I did not already know this information, would
the explanation be clear from this document."</SPAN
> If it is confusing to you and you already generally
understand what the author is trying to say, then there is a good chance that the explanation is
really confusing for someone reading the document for the first time. If you run across this situation,
and you don't really know how to correct the technical explanation, or you are afraid your changes might
affect the meaning of the document, ask for help from a technical expert. If no technical expert is available
or no one responds to your requests, note the needed changes in
the review and mark that these concerns need to be addressed in the technical review. </P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Organization. </B
> In some cases the document would really benefit from a different structure. You should address these
issues when they interfere with the understanding of the information within the document. If a document gives
background information after a procedure has been performed, this may well be too late for the reader to
fully consider the information he or she needs before performing the task. Look for document organization that might
confuse or mislead the reader. These will be the types of issues you want to address. Once these are identified, it
may be worthwhile to let the author know your rationale and discuss major changes with him or her.</P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Sentence Structure. </B
> To some extent, sentence structure issues are discussed in the grammar section; however, there are some additional issues
that are not grammatically incorrect but do interfere with the readers comprehension of the material. One of the most noticable of these
is stacked prepositional phrases. Stacked prepositional phrases become a problem when the document's readability suffers
because it becomes less and less clear what the subject and action of the sentence are. In some cases more
precise descriptors are needed or sentences need to be changed from one long sentence that is hard to
comprehend, to two or three more easily read sentences. </P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Readability. </B
> This area is somewhat subjective. What passes for fairly readable material to one person might be confusing to someone
else. Because this is a value judgement you should be cautious when marking up an author's work for readability.
Realize when basing a judgement on readability that you might be dealing with preferences of style. At this point
in time within the LDP, there is no set style or stylistic rules that authors need to follow. In evaluating readability
you must consider whether or not the way the document is written truly interferes with the readers understanding
of the information. If the answer you come up with is <SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
>"No, but it doesn't sound like I think it should."</SPAN
>
then you should probably not re-write the text to make it sound better to you. </P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Versioning. </B
> Every document should have a version number, preferably in the form
Major.Minor.Bugfix, where each section is an integer.
Some authors use Alan Cox style versions (e.g., 1.4pre-3) and some include
additional information (e.g., 1.3beta). This is acceptable but not encouraged.
The most important thing is that we <EM
>have</EM
> a version
number so we know which version we are dealing with! Once a document goes through review it should
advance in minor or bugfix version number, depending on the amount of change introduced.</P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Title. </B
>The title should be in proper title case. The general principle for this is that all words are
capitalized in a title except prepositions and articles (an article will be capitalized if it is the
first word in the title). The word HOWTO should be
in all capital letters. There should be no hyphens within the word HOWTO (with the exception of the Mini-HOWTO).
The version should not be included in the title.</P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Date Formats. </B
>Dates should be in standard ISO format, which is YYYY-MM-DD.</P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Uniform Use of Terms. </B
> Because the HOWTO you are reviewing is probably filled with new information for the reader, it is important
that the terms discussed throughout the document be uniform. For example, referring to a part or parameter in one section of the
document by one name and then calling it by another name (or an abbreviation that has not be explained) in another
part of the document is confusing for the reader. Making sure that terms are the same throughout the document
goes a long way in helping the reader understand the documentation. </P
></DIV
></LI
><LI
><DIV
CLASS="FORMALPARA"
><P
><B
>Definitions of Acronyms or Slang. </B
> Terminology and language within the realm of computer technology changes rapidly. In reviewing documents
you may find that many of the terms that are being discussed are not valid words in any dictionary or technical
reference that you are familiar with. In this case you will need to search on terms and find if they are, in fact,
terminology that is accepted in the general Linux community. Terms that are less familiar should be defined immediately
following the first instance of the term. Slang should be replaced with more common terminology if the slang will
causes the reader to be confused by the connotation or denotation of the term. Remember that readers using
the document may not come to English as a primary language and, therefore, you should do your best to make sure
that the document is as easy to understand as possible. </P
></DIV
></LI
></UL
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT1"
><HR><H1
CLASS="SECT1"
><A
NAME="REPORTING"
>6. Reporting Your Results</A
></H1
><P
>Once you have completed your review of a document, you should send your results back
to the working group. The coordinator will record your work in the database.
The coordinator will not need the updated source, but he or she will need any metrics
you have collected and your notes. He or she will also need to know which types of review
you have completed.</P
><P
>If you have made any modifications to the document, also send your updates to the
author or maintainer, as well as the LDP Submission List, which is at
<A
HREF="mailto:submit@linuxdoc.org"
TARGET="_top"
><I
CLASS="CITETITLE"
>submit@linuxdoc.org</I
></A
>.
</P
></DIV
></DIV
></BODY
></HTML
>
