Editing Service

EDITING SERVICE 4

EditingService

(InstitutionalAffiliation)

Editing:HowHealthy is Milk for Halifax?

Thearticle examines the environmental impact of a carton o Baxter milk.The article starts with good introduction that captures the mainaspects discussed in the essay. The authors’ have expressed theirarguments well and in a chronological manner. The style of thearticle resembles a magazine article but lacks insufficientillustrative images(Powell, 2009).It is important that the authors added more graphical illustrationthat illustrates comparison between Baxter milk and other varieties.Even the graphical representations made are not proportional to thearticle’s format. This is an important aspect that would supportthe authors’ discussion on the cost benefit analysis of Baxtermilk.

However,the article has a captivating title but there are few subheadings inthe essay’s body(Butcher, Drake and Leach, 2006).The article would look better if subheadings are included to capturereaders’ interest. The Organizationof the essay is fairly good. There is logical flow of ideas butlimited elaboration on some important aspects. For instance, theauthors present snippet elaboration on ‘impacts of Baxter milk.’The bullet point format used is not appropriate for that section thesession would look better if some few sentences are added forelaboration. In addition, the article has so many white gaps thatmake the article look disorganized.

Furthermore,the use of numerals in the discussion section make the article looksless attractive. The article could be made more attractive if thenumerals are replaced with small bond subheadings (Butcher,Drake and Leach, 2006).Nonetheless, organization of the content is fairly good and theauthors’ have captured important aspects required in the article.However, the social cost benefit Analysis and the lifecycleassessment (LCA) need more information. It is important that theauthors elaborate more on GHG aspects of Baxter Milk. For instance,the introduction lacks clear elaboration on GHG. Furthermore, thecomputations did require more elaboration to make the content moreappealing.

Overall,the assignment is not complete and lacks the recommendation part. Inaddition, the article requires more elaboration on various aspectssuch as GHG, CBA and LCA. The artickle spelling and grammar is fairbut the authors need to proofread and avoid the misuse of articles.For instance, the authors says, “…..cows who produce..,” theuse of “who” article is wrong. The use of graphics is relativeand more factual and well formatted graphics are needed (Powell,2009). For example, the LCA diagram shown requires more details.However, the authors have used some degree of clarity in the samplecalculations given making their argument bad analysis effective. Moredetails would help explain some computation to make the article lesstechnical (Iverson,2004).

Nonetheless,the article is good, the content is fairly good and the organizationis fair. The most interesting thing is how the authors have presentedtheir opinions. The opinions are creative and show adequateunderstanding on the topic presented. In order to make the articlemore appealing, some aspects must be put in order (Chandler,1993).In particular, the authors need to make the article more appealingthrough creative graphics that are well formatted.

Thecontent need to be detailed especially the section about ‘theimpacts of Baxter Milk.’ The article has many white spaces and thismake the article less appealing. Eliminating the white gaps andworking on graphic proportion would make the article more appealing(Iverson, 2004).Lastly, the author’s needs to proof read and correct spelling aswell as grammatical mistakesThe (Purdue Online Writing Lab).In conclusion, the article can be rated as follows style 6 /10,Organization 5/10, Content 7/10, spelling and Grammar 5/10,Graphics 4/10, clarity of sample calculations 7/10.

References

&quotProofreading,&quotThe Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL).

Butcher,Judith Drake, Caroline and Leach, Maureen (2006). Butcher`sCopy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors andProofreaders(4 Ed.). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Chandler,Daniel(1993). &quotWriting strategies and writers` tools&quot. EnglishToday: the International Review of the English Language.9(2): 32–8.

Iverson,Cheryl (2004). &quot&quotCopyeditor&quot vs. &quotmanuscript editor&quot vs…: venturing ontothe minefield of titles&quot.ScienceEditor27(2): 39–41. Archived from theoriginalon 3 December 2010.Retrieved 18March2015.

Powell,Barry B. (2009). Writing:Theory and History of the Technology of Civilization,Oxford: Blackwell.