[projectaon] Re: Tabletop Heroes
- From: "Timothy Pederick" <pederick@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 23:41:39 +0900
On 29/01/2008, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This time, I decided to wait until I'd received feedback, and I get it
> from
>
two very thorough sources.
You mean three. ;-)
I was hoping to really nail this one tonight, but important distractions (
i.e. wife) intervened and I'm leaving it at 16 pages for tonight. I've gone
through and marked duplicates of LeRoy's work (in italics) as I've found
them, though...
A Hard Day's Knight, p.4
interest regards miniatures -> [tp: Probably just an idiom, but I would
expect 'interest as regards' or 'interest regarding']
company Many -> company. Many
a very useful features -> a very useful feature
Sadistically inclined -> Sadistically-inclined
Reptilian Banners: Symbols: -> [tp: The double colon-separated 'headers'
seem odd; perhaps drop Banners: and bold Symbols:?]
portcullis's -> portcullises
skills. -> skills? [tp: To complete the question 'but what about']
Under Siege, p.7
[caption] Scratch built -> Scratch-built
a little used setting -> a little-used setting
Irregular Miniatures, 18 -> [tp: 18 should not be bold]
Miniatures à la Mode, p.9
Tabletop Heroes is a -> [tp: 'is' should be bolded]
J R R -> J. R. R.
photograph no 2 -> photograph no. 2
this figure with its -> this figure, with its
malevolence makes -> malevolence, makes
hells-angel -> hell's angel
look, that -> look that [tp: Or look, which]
thieves guild to -> thieves' guild to
Flying the Flag, p.11
raison d'être -> [tp: Italics, not bold]
lec-turn -> lec-tern [tp: Unusual spelling. I thought it was a mistake at
first, missed because of the column split. Turns out it IS valid, but it
might still be unintentional?]
accessories that are -> accessories than are
customer's requirements -> customers' requirements
and opened out, is -> and opened out is
To Boldly Go..., p.12
Tabletop Heroes is a -> [tp: 'is' should be bolded]
manufacturers catalogues -> manufacturers' catalogues
'mili-tary shuttle -> 'mili-tary shuttle' [tp: Or else after military?]
most unlikeliest -> most unlikely [tp: Or unlikeliest]
tech no-junk -> techno-junk
Tabletop Games -> [tp: Bold the whole name]
[caption] bight) -> (right)
marines; battling -> marines, or battling [tp: Different to LeRoy's.
Semantically, the later 'or' is one level lower, if you follow me, leaving
the comma-separated list without an 'or'.]
SF gaming then -> SF gaming, then [tp: Maybe.]
then its worth -> then it's worth
close-combat -> close combat [tp: See my question at the end about
consistency of style]
vehicles, that -> vehicles, which [tp: Or vehicles that]
two of which -> [tp: Who's the third guy then? May or may not be supposed to
be "three of which"]
a perspex about -> a perspex [tp: Idiom? Where I'm from, you don't say "a
perspex"]
supplier isgiven -> supplier is given
Citadel Imperial Marine -> [tp: Elsewhere, only the company name is bolded,
not the miniature's name]
Laserburn supplement-'Robot Book' -> Laserburn supplement, 'Robot Book' [tp:
Or else em dash, but definitely fix the opening quote]
dreadnought -> Dreadnought [tp: As per five lines later]
1135th -> 1/35th
breach section -> breech section [tp: Also this line looks slightly indented
for some reason]
sun-guns -> stun-guns [tp: At a guess...]
light sabres -> lightsabres
p.13
You would -> you would [tp: Better would be to put the page break before the
'If', in my opinion]
Racy Bases, p.14
simply 'Better -> simply, 'Better
Fig 1: Shows -> Fig 1 shows [tp: Maybe?]
details such -> details, such
set-place -> set place [tp: Not familiar with the idiom, makes me think it
should be 'set piece', but that doesn't really fit]
Hum-brol 'Yellow Facings' -> [tp: Bold Humbrol as before]
Dungeon-delvers -> Dungeon delvers
Matt 66 -> Matte 66 [tp: Apparently a correct variant, but not one I'm used
to seeing. Product name, so I could be wrong.]
Thinking in Colour, p.16
colour; which -> colour: which [tp: Maybe. Or an em dash, per LeRoy]
three dimensional -> three-dimensional
en masse -> [tp: Italic, not bold]
shown here are -> shown here, are
RPl -> [tp: Is this the correct ID? Looks like a mis-scan of RP1 or
something]
BLACK BLACK -> BLACK [tp: That is, on the colour chart, BLUE line. Could be
BLACK Black, but I think we know that we get black using black paint.]
And lastly, a "manual of style" sort of question: do we want to standardise
on capitalisation for things like Plasticard, Redemptionist, Dreadnought,
sci-fi, and any others I've missed? And hyphenation (e.g. close-combat on
p.12)?
Or is that too much work for one document? :-P
--
Tim Pederick
Other related posts:
