Rate this article

Nut-Nights

Elite Member
Executive VIP
Jr. VIP
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
11,503
Reaction score
8,911
Guys rate this article out of 10. Be honest :) Article updated

"
The judge indicted former President Sarkozy, after 15 hours of interrogation during his custody, for the following reasons: bribery, influence peddling and breach of confidentiality of the investigation.

The number of cases involving: financing his presidential campaign in 2007 and his relationship with Colonel Gaddafi, the network set up to learn about legal developments regarding the alleged illegal financing of the election campaign, the case of arbitration Tapie, Credit Lyonnais.

In addition, a new scandal has erupted in recent months: the Bygmalion case and funding partner of 2012 president candidate. The latter led to the resignation of Jean-Francois Cope of the presidency of the UMP.

Nicolas Sarkozy said meanwhile that there is a criminal conspiracy against him. Consequently, these events complicate his return to the forefront of the political scene in the country.

"
 
Last edited:
Grammatically I would give it maximum 7/10 (but bad grammar is a pet hate of mine so I am probably overly harsh).

It's readable, but the errors make it a bit stilted.
 
It's not too bad, I agree that there are a few grammar mistakes but I also think the sentences are constructed quite poorly. It just seemed hard to actually gain any valuable information from the article.

Feel free to send me a PM if you want me to correct the mistakes for you, feeling generous :D
 
If this is for a British audience rather than USA then according to the Oxford dictionary, (Both US and British) "pedophilia" should be "paedophilia".

Why?? I have no idea!

I'm just basing my assumption on the fact that the article is about UK politicians.
 
Did you write it yourself or is it from another source?
 
This new one is even worse than the first one. Fire your spinner.
 
Now my post doesn't make sense! You changed the article.

Naughty boy!:D
 
A lot more mistakes in this one. Are these spun?
 
I consider myself a grammar Nazi. Though it is understandable, I could not bare to read it past the second sentence:confused:. If I was a potential customer, I would immediately not trust the author. If that was from a spinner, then I can honestly relate because it can be tough manually spinning. I'd go with a 6.
 
There aren't many grammar mistakes, but the text seems to lack information. After reading this I honestly didn't remember anything, it's just so ... vague.

It must be spun content, right?

Edit: forgot about the grade. I'd give it about 6-7.
 
It's difficult to read and understand.
Better rewrite the article to improve readability.
 
Very bad,difficult to read, not worth $5 bucks,i rate it 3/10
 
Are you testing a new spinner?

It is ok for filler on Tier 1 with minor rewrite.

Rate: 4/10.
 
@http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/members/138599-trepanated.html its from other source.

I asked because I didn't want to offend you with my feedback if it was your own work.

To me it reads like a cross between and spun article and one written by someone whose first language is not English.

If it is spun, then with a little effort if could be turned into something much more readable.

If it is hand written, I would not use that person again. It is careless and they have not thought about what they have written.

EDIT:

I just read the second article.

It looks to me like it's generated by software that is piecing an article together from several sources?

If that's the case, I would say it has potential but needs some fine tuning.
 
Back
Top