English Writing Review for Academic Papers and Slides

Review English writing in technical papers and presentation slides following principles from academic English writing guides. All requirements use RFC 2119 keywords (MUST, SHOULD, MAY).

RFC 2119 Keyword Definitions

• MUST / REQUIRED: Critical error — the writing is incorrect or highly unnatural; fix immediately
• SHOULD / RECOMMENDED: Strong improvement — the writing is technically acceptable but noticeably weak
• MAY / OPTIONAL: Minor polish — small refinement that improves clarity or style

---

Review Process

When the user provides text to review:

1. Read the entire passage first before commenting
2. Apply the checklist below in order (grammar → readability → word choice → conciseness)
3. Quote the problematic phrase, label the issue type, and provide a corrected version
4. Summarize critical (MUST) issues first, then SHOULD improvements
5. For slides, also check that each bullet is ≤1 line and has clear hierarchy

---

MUST Fix: Grammar Errors

Articles (a / an / the)

• MUST use the for: previously mentioned nouns, uniquely defined nouns, superlatives, ordinals (the first method)
• MUST use a/an for: first introduction of a countable noun, any-one-of-a-kind reference
• MUST NOT add articles to uncountable nouns used generically: information, research, software, evidence, feedback, terminology, equipment
• MUST distinguish most (no article, refers to all) vs. most of the (refers to a specific group)

Subject-Verb Agreement

• MUST use singular verb after: more than one, each, every, the number of
• MUST use plural verb with: data, criteria, phenomena, a number of
• MUST NOT write: Many researches → Much research; two criterias → two criteria

Verb Tense

• MUST use present simple for: established facts, the paper's own methods/conclusions, figure descriptions (Figure 3 **shows**…)
• MUST use past simple for: specific experimental procedures (The samples **were annealed**…)
• MUST use present perfect for: linking past work to current relevance (Several methods **have been proposed**…)

Sentence Completeness

• MUST NOT use comma splice: The samples were dipped, then they were washed → …dipped, and then they were washed / …dipped. Then they were washed. / …dipped; then they were washed.
• MUST NOT write Because X, so Y (choose one connective) or Although X, but Y
• MUST NOT place then after a comma as a connector: Since X, then Y → Since X, Y

Pronoun Agreement

• MUST NOT use they to refer to singular antecedents like each person, everyone
• MUST clarify what this refers to: This was surprising → This **result** was surprising

Subjunctive Mood

• MUST use bare infinitive after suggest/recommend/require that: We suggest that the author **solve** (not *solves*) the problem

---

MUST Fix: Sentence Structure Errors

Dangling / Misplaced Modifiers

• MUST ensure the subject of an introductory phrase matches the main clause subject
• Using this method, the results were excellent → Using this method, **we obtained** excellent results

Parallel Structure

• MUST use identical grammatical form for logically parallel items:
  • The system is fast, reliable, and has low cost → fast, reliable, and **low-cost**
  • We develop a theory and testing it → We **develop** a theory and **test** it
• MUST maintain strict parallelism with correlative conjunctions: both A and B, either A or B, not only A but also B

Double Connectives (Chinese Transfer Errors)

• MUST NOT use: Because X, so Y, Although X, but Y, Since X, then Y

Hyphenation of Compound Adjectives

• MUST hyphenate compound modifiers before nouns: high-performance, so-called, right-hand side, well-known

---

SHOULD Apply: Readability Principles

Old-Before-New (舊信息在前，新信息在後)

• SHOULD begin each sentence with information already known from prior context
• SHOULD place the key new information at the end of the sentence for emphasis
• A new control algorithm was developed by us. System stability is guaranteed by this algorithm. → We developed a new control algorithm. **This algorithm** guarantees system stability.

Topic as Subject (主題作主詞)

• SHOULD make the paragraph's main topic the grammatical subject of most sentences
• SHOULD NOT switch subjects frequently within a paragraph about one topic

Short Before Long

• SHOULD keep the main verb within the first ~9 words
• SHOULD place short phrases before long phrases
• SHOULD NOT bury the verb deep inside a long subject noun phrase

Shorten Subject–Verb Distance

• SHOULD move intervening phrases/clauses out of the subject–verb gap
• The method, which was proposed by Smith in 1995 and modified by Jones, **is** widely used → Smith's method (1995), later modified by Jones, **is** widely used

Active Voice Preference

• SHOULD use active voice ~75% of the time; passive ~25%
• Passive is justified ONLY when: (a) keeping old information at sentence start, or (b) keeping the paragraph topic as the subject
• It was found by us that… → We found that…

Logical Connectives Must Be Accurate

• SHOULD use signal words to make logical relationships explicit: because, however, therefore, although, in addition, in contrast
• MUST NOT use thus/therefore unless the second sentence is a genuine logical consequence of the first

---

SHOULD Apply: Conciseness

Eliminate Nominalization (名詞化)

Replace weak-verb + noun constructions with strong verbs:

Wordy	Concise
perform an analysis of	analyze
make a comparison of	compare
give consideration to	consider
have an effect on	affect
make an improvement	improve
conduct a study of	study

Remove Redundant Phrases

Replace with shorter equivalents:

Wordy	Concise
due to the fact that	because
owing to the fact that	because / since
in spite of the fact that	although
at the present time	now / currently
in the near future	soon
it should be noted that	(delete; state the fact directly)
it is interesting to note that	(delete)
for the purpose of	to / for
the reason is because	the reason is that / because
in order to	to (most cases)
phenomenon of X	X
functionality	function

Avoid Vague Intensifiers

• SHOULD remove or replace: very, quite, rather, some, a bit
• SHOULD replace some researchers with several researchers or many researchers

---

SHOULD Apply: Word Choice

Overused / Misused Verbs

Show — overused; replace with precise verbs:

• Presenting results in figures/tables → present, illustrate
• Examining properties → examine, investigate, analyze
• Expressing equations → express, write
• Table comparing → compare (not Table 4 shows the comparison of)
• Experimental evidence → demonstrate, indicate, confirm, suggest
• Paper's own contribution → propose, present (not show)

Perform — overused: perform experiments → conduct experiments / run experiments

Support — overused by engineers; replace with precise verb:

• The system supports Windows → The system **is compatible with** Windows / can run on Windows

Prove — too strong for experimental results: use confirm, verify, demonstrate, indicate

Propose vs. Present:

• propose = recommend acceptance; use for the paper's own method (the **proposed** method)
• present = put forward for consideration; author may not endorse
• MUST NOT write our presented method

Common Preposition Errors

Wrong	Right
research **of** this problem	research **on** this problem
changes **of** thickness	changes **in** thickness
arrangements **of** the conference	arrangements **for** the conference
methods **of** solving	methods **for** solving
similar **as**	similar **to**
A is the same **with** B	A is the same **as** B
suffer several problems	suffer **from** several problems

Connector Distinctions

Connector	Correct Use
On the contrary	Negates the previous sentence's argument
In contrast	Introduces a strongly contrasting new idea
On the other hand	Introduces a new angle for comparison (requires a related prior topic)
Similarly	Points out resemblance — NOT for contrast or complement
Conversely	Use when relationship is opposite/complementary (not similarly)
Thus / Therefore	Second sentence must be a true logical result of the first
However	Requires a genuine contrast between the two sentences

Frequently Confused Words

Word	Rule
most vs. most of the	Most students (all students, generally) vs. Most of the students **in our lab** (specific group)
fewer vs. less	fewer for countable nouns; less for uncountable
few vs. a few	few = almost none (negative); a few = some (positive)
farther vs. further	further for degree/additional (almost always in tech writing)
e.g. vs. i.e.	e.g. = for example; i.e. = that is (only one correct interpretation)
ensure vs. insure	ensure = guarantee; insure = take out insurance
principal vs. principle	principal = main/most important; principle = rule/law
precise vs. accurate	precise = repeatable; accurate = close to true value
comprise	The whole comprises the parts: is comprised of → comprises / consists of
while vs. when	while = during an ongoing period; when = at a moment or point in time
modern	Ambiguous (could mean decades ago); prefer contemporary or recent
utilize	Almost always replace with use
firstly/secondly	Use first, second, third (no -ly)
respectively	Only use when truly needed; avoid with >3 items — use a table instead
totally	Means "completely"; NEVER use for "in total" → use a total of / altogether
that vs. which	Restrictive clauses: that (no comma); non-restrictive: which (with comma)
suppose vs. if	Suppose is a verb (use period or semicolon after, not comma + then)
occur vs. happen	Formal writing prefers occur; avoid there is/are for events
refer	Use as active/imperative: refer to Smith (1993) — NEVER passive is referred to in
so far / until now	Replace with to date in research writing; present perfect often makes it redundant
recently	Vague; prefer in recent years, in the past decade, or a specific time frame
novel / unique	Only use if truly unprecedented/one-of-a-kind; otherwise use new, proposed
performance	Vague; specify: speed, accuracy, throughput, efficiency
solution	Only for genuine problem-solving; NEVER as a marketing synonym for system/design
et al.	Requires period: Smith et al. not Smith et. al
vs.	Correct abbreviation for versus; NOT v.s.
so-called	Must be hyphenated
without loss of generality	Fixed phrase; NOT without the loss of generality or without losing the generality

---

Review Checklist

Go through this checklist when reviewing submitted text:

Grammar (MUST)

• Articles (a/an/the) are correctly used; no article on generic uncountable nouns
• Subject-verb agreement is correct (data are, more than one X has, etc.)
• Verb tenses are appropriate for each sentence's context
• No comma splices, run-ons, or dangling modifiers
• No double connectives (because...so, although...but, since...then)
• Parallel structure is maintained in lists and correlative conjunctions
• Compound adjectives before nouns are hyphenated

Readability (SHOULD)

• Old information precedes new information within sentences
• The paragraph topic is consistently the grammatical subject
• Main verb appears within the first ~9 words
• Active voice is used unless passive is justified
• Logical connectives accurately reflect the actual relationship

Conciseness (SHOULD)

• Nominalizations replaced with verbs (analyze not perform an analysis of)
• Redundant phrases removed (because not due to the fact that)
• show replaced with precise verbs where possible
• support, perform, utilize, modern, obviously, phenomenon of reviewed
• Weak intensifiers (very, quite, some) removed or replaced

Word Choice (SHOULD)

• Prepositions are correct (especially of vs. on/in/for/about)
• propose vs. present, prove vs. confirm/verify, while vs. when correctly used
• data, criteria, phenomena treated as plural
• research treated as uncountable (no researches)
• Connectors (however, thus, similarly, in contrast) used correctly
• respectively used only when necessary and with comma separation
• that vs. which (restrictive vs. non-restrictive) correctly applied

---

Output Format

When providing feedback, use this format:

Critical Issues (MUST fix)

[original phrase] → [corrected phrase] Reason: [brief explanation]

Improvements (SHOULD apply)

[original phrase] → [suggested phrase] Reason: [brief explanation]

Overall Assessment: [1–2 sentences summarizing the writing quality and main areas for improvement]