1,254
edits
Talk:What is “wordiness”?: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The entry could use a table of contents. You gave all the right info that you needed. If you use headings to break up your sections it will be more friendly to the scrolling eye.- Dave Burkert | The entry could use a table of contents. You gave all the right info that you needed. If you use headings to break up your sections it will be more friendly to the scrolling eye.- Dave Burkert | ||
Liked usage of lists in this one. There were a few errors to look over. Might go a little more in-depth. | |||
-Terence Heenan | |||
Good entry. Great organization. Minor spelling errors. Anthony Jones | |||
Paper was well written and it had good points. Topic chosen was illustrated in an effective way for the internet. It was easy to scan for important information, and good examples were being used. Over all paper was well written and no grammatical errors were noticed. Writer may have chosen to use bold print to illustrate things, but paper was good | |||
--[[User:Apitt329|Apitt329]] 13:32, 24 Mar 2005 (EST) | |||
"That baby is gargantuan." This is not a wordy sentence, nor does it sound "ridiculous." You need to redefine "wordiness." Your list of works cited is also formatted oddly. --[[User:Glucas|Glucas]] 10:59, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT) | |||