I'd like feedback on my Hub: New Requirement of a Modified

1. 59

   Aliswellposted 7 years ago

   Hi Hubbers,
   
   I'd like some help with passing the Quality Assessment Process. Will you please give feedback on my Hub New Requirement of a Modified "Boot Camp" for Congressional and Presidential Candidates starts in 2016! (must be signed in to view). What can I do to improve? Thanks!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Aliswellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Because NO ONE out of the Zillions of Hubbers feel they have any interest or time to reply and offer any criticism, Good, Bad, or Indifferent...I WILL!!!
      
      Not Great old son, but have seen a lot worse and you can improve by simply keeping at it and learning what really "Cranks people's Tractors"!!

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Your point of view is confusing and impractical at first glance. However, your effort is respected due to the sincere tone of writing. You never know if some are off contemplating it. As far as attracting readers, the idea of "bootcamp" for politicians is vague and hard to visualize or imagine, as it is beyond our sense of order, as far as what we are used to.
         
         The current Bootcamp for politicians is Life, if you ask me. Those who end up, (through their own volition,) in the political spotlight, have truly endured trials and tribulations on many levels.
         I am curious what you would recommend as far as a bootcamp for:
         
         Campaigning politicians?
         Potential leaders?
         Elected politicians?
         
         It might be a good forum topic. The topics forum is a good place to test the waters.
         - which, I notice, you have not done.

         replyreport
   2. 74

      Barbara Kayposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Under qualified is just one word if you look it up in the dictionary. I know the spell checker on here corrects it as two words. I've tried writing political hubs myself and they just don't go over well here. That may be why you aren't getting replies.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Aliswellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for your kind feedback!

         replyreport
   3. 96

      theraggededgeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think you would have a better chance of passing QAP if you stop capitalising random words. As for the content - I think you make some good points. We in the UK are governed in the main by a bunch of old Etonians who have no idea how ordinary people live. Anyone can become an elected Member of Parliament, regardless of educational attainment. In some regards, that's a good thing but in many others, not so much.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         DrMark1961posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         i was Wondering if the writer was "Even" a native english speaker. he REALLY should get someone from the u.s. or g.b. to read his hub and correct his english, then maybe his good points might be Understood.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            … what good points, specifically?

            replyreport
            1. 96

               DrMark1961posted 7 years agoin reply to this

               i Was just commenting on RaggedEdge´s Comment, since she read it through. i COULD NOT even read his english.

               replyreport
      2. 59

         Aliswellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for your kind suggestions!

         replyreport
   4. 90

      Marisa Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think your biggest problem is the title - it's far too long.   Do you notice on this forum, how most of the Hub title has been cut off?  When it's cut off like that (as it often will be online), the first few words make no sense on their own, so I would suggest revising to get the most important words nearer the beginning, e.g. "Boot Camp for Congressional & Presidential Candidates...."
      
      I found the article confusing, I'm afraid.  Your title suggests there WILL be a legal requirement for candidates to go to some kind of boot camp, starting in 2016.   However your article starts by bemoaning the lack of training for candidates, then says nothing about anything new being introduced - so I assume that's not what you meant.
      
      Next, your article talks about how military personnel have to go through boot camp.  I think you are implying that candidates should also undergo some kind of boot camp, but you don't say so, so I'm not sure.  What kind of boot camp would it be?   Who would run it?  Who would pay for it?  When would they undergo it - before putting themselves up for candidacy or after they're elected? 
      
      Also I do agree that the random capital letters need to be removed.  HubPages expects magazine-quality articles with magazine-quality grammar and spelling.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Aliswellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you Marisa, for your very constructive and sincere suggestions and comments! This was the type of constructive feedback I was looking for!

         replyreport
2. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   'What better time to instill the assurance ... that congressional and presidential candidates, ("of ultimately life and death decisions") are
   1. Trained:  ?
   2. Tested: ?
   
   in order to have the expertise required in order to "protect and serve those they make those claims to!!"
   
   
   If an article is confusing after the very first paragraph, the eye tends to skip through the rest to avoid the forth coming flood of confusing and confused ideas.
   
   PS I know very little of  the nature of bootcamp and it is probably a joke.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Aliswellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      at the risk of offending the bitter and sarcastic individual who takes such great offence at my lack of proper pronunciation and sentence structure i will omit all attempts at such and would only say how much your sincere and helpful comments meant 2 me
      if I could but obtain the mind bending gut wrenching story telling ability about dogs that you have my heart would sore to heights never thought 2 attain
      
      the lady on the other hand came across as brutely honest with a subtle attempt at improvement suggestions alas some jabs of sarcasim thrown in for good measure
      2 U both live long and well just live long pls feel free 2 not respond as I have definitely since receiving your input regretted asking for any feedback

      replyreport
      1. 84

         psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         If that is how you respond to sincere feedback about how to write a successful hub, I shall save myself the time of making the attempt.  I do, however, suggest that you reconsider actually taking the advice to use conventionally (a.k.a. correctly) structured sentences and properly spelled words.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Aliswellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If you consider the "Dog Whisper" comments as sincere, then thanks, but no thanks to your advice!

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Deleted
               1. 59

                  Aliswellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  what did U not understand about: 'pls feel free 2 not respond as I have definitely since receiving your input regretted asking for any feedback'?????

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     ulp.

                     replyreport
                  2. 77

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I found the dogs!

                     replyreport
                  3. 84

                     psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     What do you not understand about forums being public and shared discussions?

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        yeah.

                        replyreport
               2. 59

                  Aliswellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  They are my literary paintings caugt here on Hub Pages, my virtual matrix. 
                  
                  really if you pick apart others for poor sentence structure vague attempted reader understanding and interest or misspelled words can you please back up and smell the roses
                  
                  caugt
                  
                  oh yeah intentially provided no capital letters or punctuation just for u

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     PS How about some quotation marks? (at least?)
                       … and where are the dingbots?

                     replyreport
            2. 59

               Aliswellposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               And, oh by the way! I would suggest you study up on the meaning, and usage of a.k.a! That abbreviation is normally used by law enforcement to refer to a criminal's alias.
               Not real sure why you used the parenthesis to de-emphasise your instruction to use 'conventionally' structured sentences, while at the same time...You propose to use the word 'correct' inside the parenthesis, as referenced by your incorrect usage of a.k.a...as having the same meaning??
               I believe the more appropriate use of the word 'correct', would be 'free from error', not as you tried to communicate as in an 'accepted or standardl method'.
               Finally, your usage of the adverb 'conventionally' after the words to use, upsets (to me) the entire sentence structure!!
               
               Just Saying.

               replyreport