TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
IMO having peers (other writers) review your writing is better than no
review at all. But, having been reviewed by writers, reviewed by
editors, and reviewing other writers let me advance a warning. Writers
who review (self included) have an almost uncontrollable urge to rewrite
someone else's work in the way they themselves would have written
the information originally. It takes an almost inhuman level of self-control
to limit comments to grammar or content inaccuracies. It is probably OK
not to be a content expert, because your future customers probably
aren't either.
Most editors of my acquaintance have evolved beyond these base urges
to rework in their own image. This may be because <I am sure> one of
the job requirements for editor is tolerance, acceptance, and
understanding that there is more than one way to describe a cat (notice
the politically correct change to an idiom).
Good luck to all writers who must review other writers
and good luck to all writers who must be reviewed by other writers.
