Local Revisions: Wordiness

benrosengard, "Tile Words", 10/11/14, CC0 Public Domain

 

 

Exerpt from "The Second Chernbyl: Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Energy Controversy"

Before

March 11, 2011- A record 9.0 earthquake hit Japan destroying buildings and property. 140 miles south of Tokyo, the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power station began experiencing the effects of the earthquake and shut down units 1, 2, and 3. With this immediate shutdown along with those of 11 other nuclear power plants in the area, Japan was plunged into a black out. The 8 emergency generators of the power plant turned on to ensure that reactors’ stability. Within an hour, the tsunami caused by the initial quake flooded the backup generators and the plant as a whole. This began the infamous four day meltdown of the Fukushima reactors.
After

March 11, 2011- A record 9.0 earthquake hit Japan unleashing destruction. 140 miles south of Tokyo, the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power station began experiencing the effects of the earthquake and shut down. The earthquake caused Japan to be plunged into a country wide black out. The 8 emergency generators of the power plant turned on, but within an hour the tsunami flooded the backup generators and the plant as a whole. This began the infamous four day meltdown of the Fukushima reactors.

How is the rewritten section different from the original, from the perspective of your audience? Is it better? In what way? Is it worse? In what way?
The rewritten section is different from the original because it is less descriptive. When I originally wrote the paragraph I was keeping in mind that I wanted it to not be wordy so I tried to condense it as much a I could. Condensing it further for this exercise has made it a very vague paragraph that does little to inform the reader of some interesting information. The positive side of the condensing is that the reader only gets a small amount of information and no un-needed information.