|
|
Post by Leb on Feb 16, 2003 11:39:33 GMT -5
I sent in my latest article Monday, and it was rejected for this week's Times. Normally when I get a rejection, I look back at my submission and think, "Oh, I need to change this," and such, and make the necessary changes and resubmit. But for this, I seriously can't find anything wrong with it. You can read my article at leb388.tripod.com/neomailetiquette3.html, and it's a continuation of two previous articles on Neomail. The only reason I can possibly think for it being rejected was that it was a continuation article, but I haven't heard anything about continuation articles not being accepted. If you can please read the article and tell me if you find anything wrong with it, even the slightest error, please post here! |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Feb 16, 2003 12:56:27 GMT -5
I didn't see anything worth rejection, but it did seem kinda choppy because there were so many titled sections with just one paragraph or so under them. Also, some of the bits didn't exactly seem related to Neomail ettiquette but to Neomail in general--like the 'history' bit and the 'folders' bit. Maybe focusing the thing a bit more closely would help. (Then again, I did a paper once and ended up increasing it by about one-half because people said I made it too narrow, so...  ) These are just my opinions, though, and I could be wrong easily.... |
|
|
|
Post by Leb on Feb 16, 2003 13:44:43 GMT -5
I didn't see anything worth rejection, but it did seem kinda choppy because there were so many titled sections with just one paragraph or so under them. Also, some of the bits didn't exactly seem related to Neomail ettiquette but to Neomail in general--like the 'history' bit and the 'folders' bit. Maybe focusing the thing a bit more closely would help. (Then again, I did a paper once and ended up increasing it by about one-half because people said I made it too narrow, so... ) These are just my opinions, though, and I could be wrong easily.... Thanks, that's some good advice! I'll try to make it more on etiquette and add more details; thanks again! |
|
|
|
Post by Tdyans P on Feb 16, 2003 17:05:46 GMT -5
I think mentioning outside web sites (like pinkpt.com) isn't allowed in NT articles, so you may need to remove that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leb on Feb 17, 2003 17:56:05 GMT -5
I think mentioning outside web sites (like pinkpt.com) isn't allowed in NT articles, so you may need to remove that. OK, I did--thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by sticky on Feb 17, 2003 17:59:17 GMT -5
Maybe because there have been articles like this before. Instead of re-writing what 2 other people have written articles for, come up with an idea all your own! The article itself is well written though, and I really like your writing. Dungism was great.  |
|
|
|
Post by Leb on Feb 18, 2003 13:15:31 GMT -5
Maybe because there have been articles like this before. Instead of re-writing what 2 other people have written articles for, come up with an idea all your own! The article itself is well written though, and I really like your writing. Dungism was great. Thanks for the compliment. But it was my idea, and I wrote the other two Neomail articles, not two other people. I'm just adding more stuff to what I didn't cover. |
|
|
|
Post by witchdoctor12 on Feb 23, 2003 10:59:46 GMT -5
I read your article and I don't see a reason why it should be rejected. It did need a little fixing up (maybe it shouldn't have been so desultory), but overall, it is a very good article. Just keep at it! |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Feb 23, 2003 14:38:12 GMT -5
*blinks* It got in this week. Heh. Guess you didn't need to change it after all...
|
|
|
|
Post by calvinseviltwin on Mar 8, 2003 8:58:22 GMT -5
It's good Leb!
|
|
)