Wordiness

[Judith]

After writing 2,289 (2,133 sold) articles here at CC, I had my first one returned yesterday for wordiness. After having 4 people go over it, they don't understand it any better than I do. There is no explanation of what or where the wordiness is. The only part marked was an anecdote, and the editor said "The anecdote in this section feels misplaced." The anecdote was a direct response to the result of a Yale study mentioned above the quote.

I am wondering if I should rewrite it (when I prefer the content as is) or just scrap it.

[HiredGun]

Have you tried running the piece through https://grammark.org/dist/#/fix/wordiness to see if there's anything you can cut? I heard Constant Content was adding new editors, so maybe you've run across a new one? Are any of these 93 phrases (http://writerswrite.co.za/93-extremely- ... s-to-break) present in your article?

Sometimes it's better to put the piece aside for a few days, and then edit it and re-submit to Constant Content in the hopes you get a different editor.

[Judith]

Thanks HiredGun
I just ran it through Grammark and got this:

Woohoo! Your writing seems concise, precise, and snappy. George Orwell would be proud.

There was no wordiness found, so I am going to take your advice and hang on to it for a week or so and resubmit. If it comes back again, I'll post it elsewhere. I wasn't aware there are new editors, and I suppose they have to get their feet wet. I can't remember the last rejection I had, but now I will be able to!!

[GailF]

I also sometimes just resubmit and hope to get a new editor (I've never had one bounced back for this). Wordiness seems a strange one to pull you up on, especially with no mention of where it is or what they mean.