DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Binuilienzync** · 12-11-2010, 10:18 PM

I think that if the point of the article is to speak against BSL, that, even though it's good information, the second paragraph could be done away with.

I wrote a few letters against BSL and my English Professor (who always proof-reads for me) told me that there's a ton of scientific studies out there that show that the "average" reader stops reading after the first few paragraphs. So the REALLY important information needs to be there or else your entire article is pretty much wasted.

The article could also probably be shortened by getting rid of "filler" words.

In the 5th paragraph, starting with "because". That could be reworded to something like: "Sensational media and general public misinformation has lead the common person to think that the "Pit Bull" is an all out aggressive dog".

I would also remove the "less then respectable members of society" comment because that in itself could stir some shit up. When writing articles like this, you want to be extra careful to not stereotype, or otherwise "offend" certain times of people. If I was an complete blabbering idiot, I could take that comment as a racist remark because I'll "assume" what kind of people you're talking about. I'd say something like, "ill-informed" people, perhaps, or maybe not even say anything like that at all.

The second to last sentence, you use the word "here", twice. The second "here" could be done away with. The "this leads me to wonder" could also be removed. I often find that short, dramatic sentences often catch the readers attention much better than sentences with a lot of "pre" wording before it. An example would be, "At the end of the battle, after all the blood shed was over, only one had survived." As opposed to: "One person had survived the entire, bloody battle."

While the first sentence is very descriptive and sounds great, the second one also sounds good and gets the same point across in almost half the words.

The part saying "its up to us as owners of these dogs and dogs in general" sounds a bit choppy to me. Perhaps something more general, such as, "It's up to all dog owners to be responsible, education themselves, and share all of the wonderful information they have to offer." I feel like targeting all owners, not just pit bulls, may be more appropriate, since it's really an "irresponsible owner" issue in the first place.

Otherwise I find it a very good article

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

If you decide to keep the second paragraph, note that you described their fur twice: "They typically weigh between 20-70 pounds and have short sleek fur. The are medium sized, with a short sleek coat over their compact muscles."

12-11-2010, 10:18 PM	#3
Binuilienzync Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 443 Senior Member	I think that if the point of the article is to speak against BSL, that, even though it's good information, the second paragraph could be done away with. I wrote a few letters against BSL and my English Professor (who always proof-reads for me) told me that there's a ton of scientific studies out there that show that the "average" reader stops reading after the first few paragraphs. So the REALLY important information needs to be there or else your entire article is pretty much wasted. The article could also probably be shortened by getting rid of "filler" words. In the 5th paragraph, starting with "because". That could be reworded to something like: "Sensational media and general public misinformation has lead the common person to think that the "Pit Bull" is an all out aggressive dog". I would also remove the "less then respectable members of society" comment because that in itself could stir some shit up. When writing articles like this, you want to be extra careful to not stereotype, or otherwise "offend" certain times of people. If I was an complete blabbering idiot, I could take that comment as a racist remark because I'll "assume" what kind of people you're talking about. I'd say something like, "ill-informed" people, perhaps, or maybe not even say anything like that at all. The second to last sentence, you use the word "here", twice. The second "here" could be done away with. The "this leads me to wonder" could also be removed. I often find that short, dramatic sentences often catch the readers attention much better than sentences with a lot of "pre" wording before it. An example would be, "At the end of the battle, after all the blood shed was over, only one had survived." As opposed to: "One person had survived the entire, bloody battle." While the first sentence is very descriptive and sounds great, the second one also sounds good and gets the same point across in almost half the words. The part saying "its up to us as owners of these dogs and dogs in general" sounds a bit choppy to me. Perhaps something more general, such as, "It's up to all dog owners to be responsible, education themselves, and share all of the wonderful information they have to offer." I feel like targeting all owners, not just pit bulls, may be more appropriate, since it's really an "irresponsible owner" issue in the first place. Otherwise I find it a very good article ---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ---------- If you decide to keep the second paragraph, note that you described their fur twice: "They typically weigh between 20-70 pounds and have short sleek fur. The are medium sized, with a short sleek coat over their compact muscles."
	Quote