This is actually a well-written article. Short, simple, great opening, no grammar mistakes, well-organized in headings and images, cited hyperlinks with M/D/Y (should be Y/M/D, oh well) … Sad how we’ve been conditioned into reading awful writing over the years. I don’t understand how NYT maintains its image of quality when so many of their writers have a fetish for becoming the Next American Author, which drags would-be 500 word articles into 1200.
This is actually a well-written article. Short, simple, great opening, no grammar mistakes, well-organized in headings and images, cited hyperlinks with M/D/Y (should be Y/M/D, oh well) … Sad how we’ve been conditioned into reading awful writing over the years. I don’t understand how NYT maintains its image of quality when so many of their writers have a fetish for becoming the Next American Author, which drags would-be 500 word articles into 1200.