My initial
impression of this article is that whoever wrote this may be border lined
insane. He says he is going to get to the point in the first line and then he
reiterates himself too much and we don’t ever know what he is talking about
till the 5th paragraph.
The point the writer is making is to
inform us of how often we don’t read a full article. However, who has time to
read an article online that is two pages?? He is making a good point, but if he
really wants an audience to want to read his full article he needs to watch the
length and take out all the extra fluff no one cares about.
The writer does have a good amount of
information and charts in his article that back up his main points and
legitimize his article. The charts and his statistics validate his research and
make it appear that he has done his homework.
The writer’s article would have been
nothing without the research. His execution was horrible in my opinion, but he
was actually writing about an interesting topic because most people never read
a full article but still tweet and repost these articles. And how can you do
that with an article that you haven’t full read and act like you know what you
are talking about?
I like how Slate.com uses vivid pictures so viewers can
clearly imagine the topic of each article. There isn’t much length to each
article but they get the information across to the audience as concise as they
can, which is good for users who just want to quick facts. I also like how they
quote other sources so readers can see what other websites are saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment