feedback following submission to ReelRundown

1. 61

   EC Wellsposted 2 years ago

   Hi, All:
   
   I recently submitted an article to ReelRundown. The article was previously selected for HubPro editing and underwent that process. The feedback from ReelRundown indicated word count and dividing the article into capsules were issues. However, the article is already divided into capsules and meets the word count.
   
   I welcome constructive and actionable feedback, but in this instance, it seems the feedback may not be fitting. I'd prefer not to wait through the waiting period to submit the same article again. Is there some process for following up?
   
   Here's a link to the article as it was submitted.
   
   https://discover.hubpages.com/entertain … -Eyes-2015

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Kenna McHughposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Hi!
      Feedback comes across as unclear or conflicting at times. I have experienced it myself. With that, I noticed some grammatical errors in your article. I recommend using Grammarly. There is a free version. I am also trying to figure out the follow-up process because I had feedback from a niche site. The fix was simple. Now it's ready, but I have to wait two weeks. Hopefully, Matt (HP moderator) will reply to that aspect.
      Anyway, below is a suggestion as an edit. I would still use Grammarly. Good luck.
      **The intention isn't necessarily part of this. We needn't fall upon the idea that this film being mysterious justifies our scrutiny.
      In some films, the details and lack of more information require considerable imaginative dexterity to hold together in any frame short of irrealism. Those feats of imagination can be enjoyable to consider in retrospect. The attempt to forgive the past and work toward appreciating "Secret in Their Eyes" is an exercise.**

      replyreport
2. 61

   EC Wellsposted 2 years ago

   Thanks for the reply, Kenna.
   
   I use Grammarly, and have the plug-in for my Chrome browser. It doesn't seem to notice anything problematic when I run the article. Perhaps You and I are using different Grammarly settings, such as audience, tone, or others. Though, as I indicated, the article has already undergone HubPro editing. So, I'm guessing it is not a matter of a preferred grammar convention at this point.
   
   I hope Matt will reply as well.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Kenna McHughposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Hi E.C.,
      
      I hear you! I ran the above section through Grammarly.

      replyreport
3. 68

   PaulGoodman67posted 2 years ago

   HP have got even stricter than they used to be in recent times.
   
   That said, I tend to agree with the feedback they gave you. The structure of the article doesn't make things easy for the reader.
   
   Some sections and paragraphs would benefit from being broken up.
   
   For instance, HubPages recommend paragraphs of no more than three sentences. Some of your paragraphs have half a dozen or more. That's not great for someone reading on a smartphone.
   
   Generally speaking, the ideal is:
   
   * Short sections in a flowing order, each with an explanatory title
   * Short paragraphs of no more than 3 sentences
   * Punchy sentences
   
   For me, it's also a little odd that you've chosen to write in the present tense.

   replyreport
4. 61

   EC Wellsposted 2 years ago

   Thanks, Paul:
   
   It is understandable shorter paragraphs are generally preferable for mobile screens. And maybe that's what the issue regarding Layout is intended to indicate.? That note does contain the word condense.
   
   I do continue to wonder about the Article Length issue. But overall, I suppose I am surprised that HubPages would select an article for HubPro editing, and after editing, the article would be considered unsuitable for a Network Site.
   
   Considering my other articles, some more recent than others, which appear on Network Sites, including ReelRundown, contain some of the features You and Kenna are noting, I am inclined to consider these determinations may have considerable subjectivity and chance as factors, which makes options for further transparency, dialogue, and possibly a standardized hands-on revision process seem fitting. I understand that ultimately practicality of processes is a determiner, but it would be nice to see HubPages making effective revision more accessible for motivated community members.

   replyreport