---
name: brycewang-stanford/ahr-writing-style
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/brycewang-stanford-ahr-writing-style@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: e91a99e6859b
---

# Writing Style (ahr-writing-style)

The AHR is read by historians of every period and place. Its best articles are written in **clear,
authoritative, narrative-aware prose** that a specialist in another field can follow with pleasure.
This skill is about voice and readability — not about generating claims (that is
`ahr-argument-development`) or formatting notes (that is `ahr-citation-and-style`).

## When to trigger

- Drafting the introduction or polishing a full draft
- The prose is dense with jargon or buries the argument
- Quotations and evidence are dropped in without framing
- Aligning tense, voice, and terminology before submission

## Writing for the whole discipline

1. **Lead with the idea.** Each paragraph should advance the argument; the reader should never have to
   reconstruct your point from a thicket of detail.
2. **Minimize jargon; define terms of art.** A historian of another field should follow your argument.
   Translate insider vocabulary or explain it on first use.
3. **Frame your evidence.** Introduce a quotation, say what to notice, then interpret it — never let a
   block quote do the arguing for you.
4. **Control tense and voice.** Narrate the past in the past tense; keep an authoritative but not
   inflated voice; prefer active, concrete sentences.
5. **Tell the story while you argue.** History rewards narrative momentum; carry the reader through
   time while the analysis accrues (see `ahr-structure-and-exposition`).
6. **Quote with care.** Reproduce sources accurately; use ellipses and brackets honestly; translate
   where wording matters and note the translation.

## Mechanics the AHR expects

- **Manuscript format:** Word document, **8½ × 11, Times New Roman 12 pt, double-spaced, numbered
  pages** — and **masked** (no identifying details) for anonymous review.
- **Style authority:** *Chicago Manual of Style* for prose and notes (see `ahr-citation-and-style`).
- **Length:** ideally **≤ 8,000 words** of text (notes/tables/charts excluded; verify current figure).

## Anti-patterns

- An introduction heavy with background that never states the argument
- Theory-speak or subfield jargon that locks out other historians
- Block quotations left to "speak for themselves"
- Present-tense narration of past events; passive, abstract sentences
- Inflated, self-important voice that distracts from the evidence

## Output format

```
【Argument visible early?】[Y/N]
【Reads past the subfield?】jargon defined / terms explained? [Y/N]
【Evidence framed?】quotations introduced + interpreted? [Y/N]
【Tense + voice】past tense, active, controlled? [Y/N]
【Format】Word / TNR 12 / double-spaced / masked? [Y/N]
【Next】ahr-citation-and-style
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — drafting tools and the Chicago Manual of Style
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — AHR formatting and length requirements