Hub Not Featured

1. 0

   Ben Blackwellposted 10 years ago

   This hub, which I considered to be my best one yet, was not featured - http://benblackwell.hubpages.com/hub/Th … f-Abortion
   
   I was wondering if one or two people could tell me what is wrong with it (if anything).
   
   Personal opinions aside, what do you guys think of the quality of the hub?
   
   (I did resubmit it just now).
   
   Thanks.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Suhail and my dogposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      On the basis of having written 10 hubs and all of them being featured, I can give one suggestion. You have long paragraphs and very few pictures of your own to go with them. They recommend having many pictures and an easy to read format.
      
      If you don't have your own pictures then use from the net and give proper credit.

      replyreport
   2. 93

      agilitymachposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I would look at it again and do some more editing.  Don't spell out the numbers - ie.91 millions 380 thousand. The layout is dull and could use help, however I've seen much worse hubs get featured.
      
      It may well be with such a controversial topic that you ran into some QAP evaluators who dinged your hub because of the topic.  You can appeal that by contacting Hubpages directly I believe.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         *Shrugs* Anything is possible, but raters that grade on topic rather than substance generally don't stay raters for long.

         replyreport
   3. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ben, I just did a cursory glance at this point; however, you have three pictures from the same source which you attributed thrice.  You only need to attribute the source once.  Attributing the same source to three or more pictures will be tagged as overpromotional.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not going to do a full list because it's late, but this should get you started.
      
      The 20th Century is the years between 1901 and 2000.
      
      "Since then, there has been over 56 million, 340 thousand and 302 abortions as of June 21, 2013"
      
      have been 56,340,302 abortions
      
      "There has been 1 billion, 298 million, 942 thousand, and 941 abortions worldwide since 1980 as of June 21, 2013 (Number of Abortions)"
      
      have been 1,298,942,941  delete (number of abortions) it's redundant. If you keep it uncapitalize number and abortions.
      
      "When a life form is conscious, it is aware of its own existence as well as its own thoughts (consciousness). When it is sentient, it has the ability to perceive the outside world (sentient)"
      
      Both the parenthesized terms are redundant. It reads oddly, especially since you use the word conscious and the word sentient five times a piece in a three sentence paragraph. As a matter of fact, The word conscious in some form or another is used 16 times in the hub and the word sentient is used 10.  It wouldn't be so bad but they are mainly used under the first subheading...which makes that 400 or so words seem keyword stuffed.
      
      All in all though, the main problems really are in the intro and under the first sub-heading. The rest of the hub reads smoother, like you fell into a groove.  The first third or so seems forced.
      
      It's close enough to passing IMHO, that just a few little edits (or a different rater) should get it through.
      
      You might not get ads on it... rape and abortion in the same hub is bound to trip some filters somewhere.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Good advice.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         The things in parenthesis are in-text citations.  I will look over the first third of the thing.  Thank you.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Fair enough and I saw that you had listed the definitions of the words as sources.  It's really not necessary to cite dictionary entries for individual words, especially considering "conscious" and "sentient" are commonly used words.
            
            If you absolutely have to define a word, a "comma parenthesis" is a bit easier to read and also doesn't offer as much chance for your reader to be insulted by defining a word they are already familiar with.
            
            For example if I was defining the word "dog": She saw the dog, a four legged furry animal, running beside the car.
            
            I usually don't have an opinion between foot-notes and in-text citations, but in this case I would probably go with footnotes since many of your citations contain the same words as the surrounding text. Of course, in internet writing I would likely not cite at all. I'd just use hyperlinks or a link box. I do have a reference subheading on a couple of hubs where the info isn't online, but I didn't directly cite.

            replyreport
2. 0

   Ben Blackwellposted 10 years ago

   Thank you to everybody who gave suggestions.  I did edit the hub, and it is now featured.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ben, Melissa makes an important point:
      
      "In internet writing I would likely not cite at all. I'd just use hyperlinks or a link box."
      
      I suspect you may be using citations because you're used to seeing them on Wikipedia - but it's an encyclopedia, not a magazine.
      
      Go to your local newsstand or library, pick up a few magazines (not academic ones) and see how many citations they contain.   HubPages is a magazine, so it's not appropriate to write as if it's the Encyclopedia Britannica.   A list of reference sites at the end of the Hub, without citations in the text, is more than enough.
      
      You definitely don't need citations for the meanings of words - any words!  it's so easy for people to consult an online dictionary, there's no benefit and it just clutters up your Hub.

      replyreport