Which peak was the writer on Yahoo! Screen referring to? I can see several in the picture:
I think it’s the big purple peak, but I’d have to take a sneak peek at the video to know for sure.
Holiday time often makes people nostalgic about past Christmases, family gatherings, and Santa fantasies. What are you nostalgic for? Me? I’m nostalgic for a time when writers cared about the quality of their work and knew the basics of English, like the difference between it’s (a contraction for it is or it has) and its (a possessive pronoun):
I miss the days when professionals would be humiliated if a reader ever took a sneak peek at a homophonic horror like this:
I’m nostalgic for the days before there was a Yahoo! Shine.
Let’s just peek inside the mind of the Yahoo! Shine writer and try to guess what is growing inside the mind of a cook-comedienne:
Westfield, an Australian mall operator, put something on the top of the World Trade Center plans. I think it was a Banana Republic.
Or maybe Westfield gave a peek at the WTC plans. Could be. After all, this “news” appeared on Yahoo! News.
If this is the best that the writer for Yahoo! Movies can do, then he or she must have peaked early in life, because most 10-year-olds know this wrong —just by peeking at it:
Holy moly! I never knew that IVF treatments can cost millions of dollars. Millions! It must be so because I read it on Yahoo! Shine:
I would have thought that the costs could add up to five figures, but I was wrong.
I was also wrong when I thought that some married men were looking for discreet one-night stands, but noooo. They’re looking for discrete, distinct, not continuous one-night stands:
This is definitely a typo, but I don’t know if the writer’s talking about a community or multiple communities:
I wish the writer would try to get her facts straight, like the name of the Known Donor Registry:
Take a sneak peek at this caption:
Can you figure out how mistakes like this get by the editors?
So, I peeked into this article by the senior features writer for Yahoo! Shine and didn’t have the stomach to read it all. I just flipped to the last page and encountered this paragraph:
Clearly skipping all the other pages was the right decision, if this lonely paragraph is any indication of the quality of the rest of the article. Here’s a rundown of the stuff that should have been repaired before this was published:
How does one simple sentence go so terribly wrong? In this photo caption from Yahoo! Movies, the writer alleges that a certain show with the homophonously challenged title premiered 33 years ago:
Not so! Siskel and Ebert would never, ever, ever appear on a show called “Sneak Peaks.” They were far too literal for such nonsense. And they didn’t appear on a show called ”Sneak Peeks.” They did, however, appear on “Sneak Previews,” which made its weekly nationwide premiere on PBS in 1978 or 1979. I just don’t know how much of this information to believe. At least the reviewers’ names are spelled correctly.
This article from Yahoo! Shine could have been so much better. If the writer is referring to the book and movie about Joan Crawford, it would have been so much better if she called them ”Mommie Dearest”:
It would be better if she had spelled Jennifer Koppelman’s name correctly:
Here’s a sneak peek at another mistake — a common one with Yahoo! staffers:
It would have been better if she had used peek (which is a brief look) and not peak (which isn’t).
This is definitely a nontraditional spelling:
This article could have been better. Of course, I guess it could have been worse, too.
Was that sneak peak reported on Yahoo! News‘ “The Cutline” an Alp?
A peak could be a mountain. A sneak peek is a furtive or advanced look at something.