My only criticism of this on yahoo.com? It’s a misspelling that would have been easily detected by a spell-checker or a person who knows how to spell:
How can one little paragraph be so chock-full of errors? Simple. It’s from Yahoo! Makers, where quality writing is not a priority.
The preferred spelling at the American Heritage Dictionary is chock-full, although chockfull is also acceptable. The preferred reference by anyone familiar with English is Big Ben, not the Big Ben. If the writer is referring to London Bridge (with a capital B) it doesn’t get the before it either. But if she’s referring to generic bridges, it doesn’t get a capital B. Who knows what she means?
Anyone can make a typo, pounding out Musit instead of Music. But it takes a special talent to come up with a group of letters that looks like a real word, but is in reality absolute nonsense. Someone with that talent works for Yahoo! Style:
You just can’t have a past tense of concept, since it’s not a verb. The word the writer should have picked? Conceptualized. Conceived. Created.
Where the heck did the writer for Yahoo! Style get the idea that ware works here?
It looks like she doesn’t know there’s a perfectly acceptable word that fits: neckwear. It ends in wear, just like many other words referring to articles of clothing: footwear, menswear, swimwear, sportswear. The words that end in ware are a tad different: hardware, software, silverware.
How much research do you think this Yahoo! Style writer did before publishing this?
I’d say none. If she had considered that the subject’s name was Bianca, she might have verified that the Milan fashion design graduate was a female, deserving of the pronoun her, not his. She might even have gotten her surname correct as well; it’s Luini. I have no idea why she thought it was anything else.