The article, sorry, is very weak. It names the past six first round draft picks with a brief comment of how they have performed and/or where they are today. There is no other commentary, opinion, or insight.
It is pretty weak.. It's like all you did was pull up wiki, copy and paste and called it an article..
p.s.
If you're looking to be a successful journalist, try flubbing the facts some, throw a move to London or LA in there somewhere and talk about how attendance and the fan base is horrible.. ESPN awaits..
Read the article, had a reply thought out, then saw 2 other people already posted what I was going to.
I can't disagree with the above responses. You asked for an honest opinion, so I'll give one. It may prove useful or interesting for a non-Jag fan, but there's nothing there that all of us here don't already painfully know. I didn't do a Wikipedia on the Jags draft history, but I think I would get about the same thing.
It looks more like a school paper than an article. Try a different angle, but don't stop trying.
The most obvious Jaguars article ever written.
Maybe filling in with some snap counts figures would help? I think the general idea for some reason is snaps counts matters. It seems what happens when the ball is snapped doesn't matter as long as the bell is answered when the ball is snapped.
Take a snap. Take a lot of snaps. Take a snap off, but just make sure to stand attentive looking at the snap.
Somebody needs to proof read that article.
"In 2008, the Jaguars choose defensive end Derrick Harvey eighth overall." The word is chose.
Regards...................the Chiefjag
I would give it a C in an 8th grade journalism class.
Quote:Somebody needs to proof read that article.
"In 2008, the Jaguars choose defensive end Derrick Harvey eighth overall." The word is chose.
Regards...................the Chiefjag
I've notice this pretty often with John Oesher in articles that he's written or Ozone.
Quote:I've notice this pretty often with John Oesher in articles that he's written or Ozone.
I've noticed this with A LOT of articles online these days. It's like no one proof reads anything. I generally try to always make sure I use proper grammar/spelling, but I never read an article and look for a mistake. So it's pretty bad when I can read one and point out one or more mistakes without trying.
I don't think anyone employs an Editor anymore.
Thanks guys. We actually do have an editor. I'm surprised that mistake got past him. Alright we will aim to do better from now on.
BeastBrief, I'll put this as constructively as I can. Although I haven't used it in a decade, I have a degree in Journalism. I went through the story and flagged 20 parts as either grammatically wrong, needing to be worded differently or needing to be checked with an AP Stylebook.
The two most structurally important parts of the story, the headline and the lead, have major problems right from the start.
If you want specific feedback, feel free to PM me.