Linda Farrow makes sandals, too?

If you’re familiar with Linda Farrow, you know it’s a brand of luxury sunglasses. Did you know that Linda Farrow offers sandals? Me neither. But that’s what I read on Yahoo! Style:

Of course, those sandals don’t look like gold, do they? You’d think the writer was actually describing aviator sunglasses.

She’s still not a princess

Let’s skip right over that misspelling of a cappella on Yahoo! Style and focus on the misspelling of Charlotte Casiraghi’s name:

And then let’s focus on the assertion that she is an “actual Princess of Monaco.” No, even if the writer had managed to get her name right, she’d be wrong about that royal title. Charlotte Casiraghi may be eighth in line to the throne of Monaco, but she is not a princess; in fact, she has no royal title. None.

Is it my lyin’ eyes?

I know nothing about fashion. So is it my ignorance of current clothing trends that makes me not see what this writer sees?

managed-to-match

She claims that these two women’s jackets matched. But I just don’t see it:

bella mariah

She could be right. If she means that both gals are wearing blue jackets with a zipper and two sleeves, she’s right. As long as we ignore the fact the Ms. Hadid’s jacket has a ruched front, but Ms. Carey’s doesn’t, she right. If we overlook the difference in the width and colors in the bands, she’s right. If we don’t take into account that the jacket on the left has ruching along the zipper and the one on the right has none, and the one on the right has a collar and a long zipper, but the one on the left has neither, she’s right. And if we don’t consider that one is cropped and one isn’t, she’s right. And one has set-in sleeves and the other, raglan sleeves, she’s right. So, it must be me.

I certainly know now to trust this writer and not my lying eyes. It’s my lying eyes that tell me that Ms. Hadid’s zipper isn’t circular, but her zipper pull is:

circular-zipper

I’ve got to start reading more fashion sites if I’m going to keep up with fashion. But maybe I won’t start with Yahoo! Style.

Maybe we should ask for a translation, part deux

I was going to ask Google for  simultaneous translation of this caption from Yahoo! Style, but I’m rethinking that decision. I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know what the writer was saying:

short-shorts

I’m a writer, not a mathematician!

Yahoo! writers aren’t known for their mathematical ability. Or even their 3-grade arithmetic ability. It’s enough that they manage to write a sentence with both a subject and a verb, like this one:

legs-sty-1

So, don’t be criticizing this writer because this is almost correct — meaning that it is completely wrong:

legs-sty-2

At 51.5 inches, the woman’s legs are 4 feet, 3.5 inches long. That’s not almost 4 feet, 3 inches because almost means “slightly short of; not quite; nearly,” according to the American Heritage Dictionary. But at least the sentence has a subject and verb. There’s that.

 

That’s quite a claim

Sometimes separating a number from the words that explain it, isn’t such a bright idea. Take this excerpt from Yahoo! Finance:

less-than-claimed-fin

You might think, as I did, that $29,000 was 67% less than claimed earnings of $90,000. Then you might think, as I did, that $29,000 was the real median. And then you’d reread the sentence to reassure yourself that the real median was $61,000, or 33% less than claimed. Or maybe $61,000—67% of the amount claimed. But not, 67% less than claimed.

I’m starting to get a headache. I think I’ll go take 4 or 5 Advil and go lie down.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus: Wrong again

Why do the writers and editors at Yahoo! have so much trouble with Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ name? Her last name is Louis-Dreyfus, not Dreyfus:

dreyfus

That’s bad. But it’s not the worst they’ve done to Ms. Louis-Dreyfus. There was the time they called her Julia Louie Dreyfus, which I thought was pretty funny. And the hyphen confusion that produced Julia-Louis Dreyfus. And the gender change that resulted in Julia Louise-Dreyfus. And the time she was both Julia-Louis Dreyfus and Julia Louis Dreyfuss in the same article.

I guess you just gotta admire the creativity, if not the accuracy, of Yahoo! staffers.

It’s unbelievably bad writing

This is possibly the worst writing by a professional that I have read in a long, long time. It’s not because of the grammatical errors and wacky word use (though they are factors). It’s because the Yahoo! Style writer made no attempt to state actual facts. It seems she made up most of the information in the article and there was no oversight to stop her.

It starts with this little lie, which alleges that Martha Washington was a great hostess at the White House:

fl-1

Martha Washington never lived in the White House, since it wasn’t even built when her husband was president. In fact, Mrs. Washington never even lived in Washington, DC. But this writer’s imagination isn’t confined by facts.

Moving on to Eleanor Roosevelt, the writer decided her life needed some enhancements, so she alleges that Mrs. Roosevelt helped serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy:

fl-2

I don’t know how one does that, but I do know that it was her husband who was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. But, let’s just pooh-pooh facts.

Why would a writer make up a name for a first lady? I have no idea, but I have evidence that this writer did:

fl-3

Pat Nixon’s real name is not and never was Patricia; it was Thelma. Why couldn’t the writer just Google that? Because facts are not important at Yahoo!.

Then there’s the “fact” that Rosalynn Carter’s father helped support her family after he died:

fl-4

I guess that’s possible, if there’s an inheritance involved.

Nancy Reagan gets a little better treatment: The writer claims that Mrs. Reagan’s  “Just Say No” campaign was jaw-droppingly successful, while the rest of the country considered it an embarrassment:

fl-5

Wasn’t it just two months ago that Mrs. Clinton was running for the presidency, and not the “Presidential office”?

fl-6

She wasn’t “the U.S. Senator of New York” (which makes no sense); she was a U.S. senator from New York. That’s a tad different.

What else is a tad different? This claim that Barbara Bush is Laura Bush’s mother:

fl-7

Barbara Bush is George W. Bush’s mother; it would be an incestuous scandal if she was also Laura Bush’s mother. She is Laura Bush’s mother-in-law. Laura Bush didn’t create a “literary program,” but a literacy program. But I quibble. After all, it’s only words.

So yeah, you’re an idiot

So yeah, that’s a Yahoo! Style writer who has no idea who the president of the United States is:

cur-president

At the risk of sounding snarky, I think that everyone — from the writer to the editor to their management — are idiots for allowing this to be published.

This seams wrong

If you believed what you read on Yahoo! Style (and why would you, really?) you’d expect pins along the hemline of this gal’s pants:

hemline-sty

But if you looked at the accompanying photo, you’d realize that the writer doesn’t know the difference between a hem and a seam:

hemline-pic

%d bloggers like this: