Um, this hub needs a lot of work!

1. 61

   TessSchlesingerposted 8 years ago

   Rip it to pieces! Tell me what needs to change! Thanks.
   
   http://hubpages.com/politics/Why-govern … -privatize

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Will Apseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I only skimmed it but three things stood out as problematic:
      
      Capitalization of headings.
      
      Privatise and privatize.
      
      Amazon ads on a page that would be better off without them. They also sort of goes against the radical spirit, lol.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TessSchlesingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, will remove the ads. They don't work anyway. So why would this hub be unfeatured, save that someone didn't agree with the sentiments?

         replyreport
      2. 96

         theraggededgeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Will, 'privatise' is correct in UK/AUS English. HP doesn't mind 'proper' English spelling

         replyreport
         1. 88

            Will Apseposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I reckon you should use one or the other. Both on the same page is a bit weird.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               TessSchlesingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               I use both for SEO purposes. That might not be the right thing to do and I'm open to suggestion.

               replyreport
   2. 96

      theraggededgeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Looks fine to me.
      
      Will is probably right about capitalizing the heading and sub-headings. I noticed a couple of years ago that it was no longer 'fashionable' to use title case in sub-headings, but it seems to have made a reappearance now. I think when you are referring to a particular government, the word government should be capitalized.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TessSchlesingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, so why, in your opinion, would this hub be unfeatured? The only reason I can think of is that someone disagreed with its comments.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            theraggededgeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Don't know, Tess. Is its traffic low? Are there swear words in the comments? Links in the comments?

            replyreport
2. 95

   Sue Adamsposted 8 years ago

   No offense meant Tess, I'm only trying to figure out why, from a moderator's point of view, this brilliant article may not be featured. So here are 3 points to consider:
   
   1. You may want to delete this entire italic section:
   "My reasoning is that because, one way or another, they earned that money on the backs of others, they should pay most of it back in tax, i.e. 90%. To my mind, anyone who earns under $500,000 per year shouldn’t pay tax at all, anyone who earns between $500,000 and $2 million a year should pay 10% of gross (no exceptions),etc. I would design a tax table like this...
   
   $1 - $500,000 per annum – no tax
   
   $501,000 to $2 million – 10% tax rate on gross income. No deductions.
   
   $2 million to $10 million – 25% tax on gross. No deductions.
   
   $11 million to to $50 million – 60% tax on gross. No deductions.
   
   Above $51 million per annum - 90% tax on gross. No deductions.
   
   In addition, there is a tax on all goods sold, with the exception of good, drink, and homes under a certain price. The more expensive/luxurious the product, the more tax is paid. This means that people with more money will pay most of the tax, and that is the way it should be.
   
   If their income hadn’t been derived on the backs of others, then others would have more and they would have less. Capitalism is a system of unequal exchange in which workers are paid less than they are worth and owners are paid more than they are worth."
   
   Why delete the entire section?
   Because by stating backed up facts only, rather than your personal opinion / manifesto,  your article makes a strong enough case to show the vast injustices of privatisation. Plus, it is long enough without it.
   ______________________________________________
   
   2. Over-use of brackets?
   At the end of this paragraph, you could maybe  use bullet points instead of brackets.
   
   "The goals of business and government differ
   
   ..... At basic levels, this would include their safety (preventing invasion and crime), an infrastructure that worked for everybody (roads, bridges, public transport), essential communication (phones, radio, internet), education, medical, etc."
   
   Change to:
   ..... At basic levels, this would include their safety
   . preventing invasion and crime
   An infrastructure that worked for everybody
   . roads
   . bridges
   . public transport
   Essential communication
   . phones
   . radio
   .  internet
   Education
   Health
   . medical
   . pharmaceutical
   . research etc.
   ______________________________________________
   
   3. Check your Poll
   phrases 3, 4, and 5 -  "policy" should be "police".

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TessSchlesingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Sue,
      
      Thank you for all that work. I have copied it and as soon as I get down to checking the article, I will take everything you have said into consideration.
      
      I'm not sure what you mean about my article being overlong. It's quite an average length for most of my articles. Some of my hubs are about 3000 words. On average, my articles are between 1800 and 2200 words, so that's very average.
      
      Thank you for confirming that a moderator 'unfeatured' it. Some months ago, people were talking about unfeatured articles, and I mentioned that all my articles were featured. They always have been. My gutfeel was that someone went to 'unfeature' four of my articles in order to prove a point, and that one was probably unfeatured based on ideology. I'm pretty certain that was the case.
      
      However, I was just making sure... 
      
      I have reworded the sentences with the brackets and taken your advice to remove them. You're right. Reads much better.
      
      Have corrected the policy to police. Thank you. Obviously a typo, but hardly sufficient reason to unfeature the article.
      
      I'm not sure within myself that I should remove my opinion. Many of my articles are written for a ready readership (I have approximately 800,000 views per month on G+) and these people like my opinion. That said, I'll read through it again, chew on it some more, and perhaps do something about it.
      
      I greatly appreciate your insights. Thank you.

      replyreport
3. 95

   Sue Adamsposted 8 years ago

   Hi Tess,
   You and I share common ground. I didn't say that the article was too long. I meant that it was long enough to afford losing the personal manifesto. I too feel inclined to do that as shown in this extract from
   
   http://hubpages.com/politics/is-the-eur … o-collapse
   
   "Are Governments Duped by Business or Accomplices?
   
   It is now blatantly clear that the powers of the global financial system are elevated far beyond governments. The electorate has been duped into voting for puppets trained and paid by gambling addicts  who have but one single goal: to make more money. Such people have lost all notion of what government functions are:
   
   A government is elected to administer:
   1. infrastructure
   2. education
   3. good health for its citizens
   4. social services for the poor
   5. justice & security
   6. stringent and enforced laws for banks and multinationals
   
   
   
   A government is NOT elected to meddle in
   borrowing
   private businesses
   the stock market
   arms deals
   acts of war
   the media"
   
   As it is so close to your ideas, I would be interested in your critique of that article, Tess.
   
   As for opinions, it's hard to refrain. I now believe that it is journalistically more correct to try and stick to facts. That way, the audience may arrive at their own opinion (hopefully similar to the author's) . I.e. lead the reader into formulating thoughts similar to yours. Leave room for thought.
   
   But that's just my "opinion"

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TessSchlesingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      First my hub, then yours.
      
      I took a look at what I was trying to say, and am in the process of rewriting it so that I am saying things more succinctly. I'll probably finish up tomorrow sometime and let you know. Thanks for your input.
      
      Now to yours..
      
      You said. "So where does the economic revolution begin? To find out more, watch the next video." This is a turn off. Give a short summary of what is in the video or use video to back up what you have said. People generally do not watch videos without having a good idea of what they are about. I never watch videos. I find them too time consuming.
      
      You don't back anything with facts. You need to provide links as you write. I would like to see links to articles that provide back up information - not op ed pieces.
      
      I've written what I think of the article in your comments.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         Sue Adamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for your feedback. I'll work on it.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            TessSchlesingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I took your suggestions and corrected all of it. I think it works better. Thanks. Much appreciated.

            replyreport