Indeed, the big words and ambiguous adjectives feel like the Yahoo! Style writer should have spent more time proofreading, and less time flipping through a thesaurus:
I thought that it was fairly shameful that the Yahoo! Style staff, who apparently all wrote this caption, didn’t know that each is a singular noun and that are wearing was the correct verb to go with it:
But then I read a few more words and realized the staff writers were pulling their readers’ legs! They were joking! Because nobody would seriously write that each model was wearing four jean styles. How would they even put on four pairs of jeans? I’ve never managed to pull on more than two at one time.
If this were written by a third-grader, the mistakes might be understandable. But coming from a professional writer for Yahoo! Style, they’re downright disgraceful:
Someone writing about fashion should know that paillettes needs two L’s; they are a type of sequin. And when the plural word is the subject of the sentence, it requires a plural subject. And Lord help her (because no one at Yahoo! will), the writer actually thinks that graceful is a suitable modifier for the verb floats. It is not; the adverb gracefully is.
Neither the Yahoo! Celebrity writer nor editor has commented on this grammatical gaffe:
When two subjects are joined by neither…nor, the verb must agree with the subject closer to it. In this case, the verb must agree with Jungwirth and should be has commented.
With this many mistakes in a single sentence, it’s a safe bet that this Yahoo! Style writer won’t be winning any journalism prizes:
I gotta give her credit for trying to use a hyphen, though she got that wrong. It should be Emmy Award-winning. It’s downhill from there: that was featured should be who were featured. Although it’s not grammatically incorrect to refer to human beings with that, it is considered impolite; that’s why she should have used who. And was featured is grammatically horrific since its subject is powerhouses. Finally, we have women in the TV, which may sound correct to those learning English. To the rest of us, it’s the worst.
How ironic. In an excerpt from Yahoo! TV, staff writers note that America Ferrera has been mistaken for Gina Rodriguez, but the writers repeatedly mistake her for someone named Ferrara:
She’s not Ms. Ferrara or Ms. Rodriguez. Neither of them is the actress. It seems the writers are as bad with grammar as they are with identifying TV stars.
The editors at yahoo.com must have been hitting the bourbon-laced eggnog pretty hard this weekend. That’s about the only explanation I have for this bit of nonsense disguised as a sentence:
What the heck does that mean? Did the editor mean: Roethlisberger is just one of a few star signal-callers who fall short of their normal standards? That would mean the writer left out at least one word and couldn’t match a verb to its subject and a pronoun to its antecedent. Given yahoo.com’s standards, that’s entirely possible.
It’s also possible the editor meant: Roethlisberger is just one star signal-caller who falls short of his normal standards. That would mean the writer included a few totally extraneous words and used a plural when a singular signal-caller would be correct.
I’m so confused. But not as confused as those editors at Yahoo!. I think I’ll lay off the eggnog for a while.
This little DIY hint from Yahoo! Makers doesn’t appeal to me at all. It’s bad enough that the editors can’t match a subject (which is oil) with a verb (which should be makes):
It’s just made worse by “the skin of orange peels.” Since orange peel is also called the skin of an orange, I can’t figure out how to get the skin of the skin.