[JMitchell]

I've just spent a little too long writing the D300 review. 1321 words, and I barely scratched the surface, but I hope it's helpful, to those who are thinking about buying it, and those who just want to know more about it. I tried to cover the main everyday features in greater depth, but with a view to them being used practically, not by pixel peeping, Canon loving reviewers.

It can be found here, and I wouldn't mind if someone took the time to review the review, as it were, and comment on my writing style and clarity of ideas, because I'd find it very helpful.

Thanks


Jack

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by JMitchell

It can be found here, and I wouldn't mind if someone took the time to review the review, as it were, and comment on my writing style and clarity of ideas, because I'd find it very helpful.

I've just seen how long it is £100 an hour ok with you? Off to read it now

[Charlotte]

Jack, as requested :

Lose the 1st para, it doesn't even mention the D300 (i.e. it's waffle)
2nd para, good. Needs an extra Return at the end (to separate it from the 3rd para.)
3rd para, useful info.
4th para, I had to read several times before I understood what you were saying.
5th para, very useful.
6th para (The settings...), good, except are you sure that everyone who reads your review will know who 'Ken' is? Best to give references in full if you're going to use them at all.
7th para (The other...), very good.
8th para (The autofocus...), useful info.
9th para (Active D-Lighting...), good.
10th para (The availability..), good.
11th para (The colour...), useful.
12th para (I don't really...), I'd leave out the 2nd sentence, since you are writing the review as an amateur, not as a pro.

Overall, very good Jack. A bit of waffle, but not too bad. You included a lot of useful information, some of which I did not already know, so I do feel that your review was helpful to read, even if it was very long

I charge extra for spelling + grammar corrections

[JMitchell]

Thanks for the info. I know it's a bit waffly, I wanted a little intro before the review proper, but I can see what you mean [so I've gotten rid of it ]. The second para doesn't however need an extra return as it's part of that 'section' so to speak. I tend to lay stuff out like that, and I'm not aware it's malpractice. Not certain though.
The Ken reference was deliberately ambiguous, so as not to 'link to a competitor site'. Was gonna find out if I could put his whole name in tomorrow.
As per the pro thing, I agree, but I also think I'm right

I wont be needing you to charge extra. I don't tend to make spelling mistakes, and I am a grammar stickler, so if there are any 'mistakes' they might well be down to personal preference of usage


Thanks again,


Jack

[Dave]

Jack, thanks for taking time to add your review ... much appreciated

Charlotte, thanks for reviewing the review