Improving Written Reports

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that errors in grammar in written engineering reports and proposals prepared for external stakeholders and potential clients make a company not look professional and can lead to misunderstandings. The author points out that the criteria for testing the many websites on grammar are usability, navigability, comprehensiveness and completeness, suitability for users with technical background but limited knowledge of grammar, usefulness of links, interactive exercises and help resources.The paper selected three sites for analysis based on these criteria: "Big Dog's Grammar", "Hypergrammar" and "Jack Lynch's Guide to Grammar and Style". The author concludes that "Big Dog's Grammar" is the most useful of these three sites and is the easiest to navigate.

Table of Contents:
Introduction
Analysis
Recommendation

From the Paper:

"The second site is called "Hypergrammar at the University of Ottawa", and this site is more comprehensive while still being easy to use. Navigation for each page is made easier through the inclusion of a menu bar at the top of each page with arrows to go forward and back, to skip to the last page or the first page, to go up or down the page, and to get help. Highlighted words on each page lead to definitions and further explanatory material. Each page offers examples and clear explanations of the parts of each example."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Big Dog's Grammar (2006). Retrieved November 29, 2006 from www.grammarbook.com.
• Hypergrammar at the University of Ottawa (2006). Retrieved November 29, 2006 from www.uottawa.ca./academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar.
• Jack Lynch's Guide to Grammar and Style (2006). Retrieved November 29, 2006 from http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing.

More papers on Improving Written Reports:

• Analytical Essay # 130997 : "Grammar Sites"
• Marketing Plan # 116874 : "Strategic Management - Management Report"
• Essay # 22656 : "Portland's Open Drinking Water Reservoir"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: