The Yahoo! Beauty writer responsible for this has no idea when to use an apostrophe:
Here’s a hint, don’t use it in a plural noun and put it in a possessive noun. Now ask a colleague to explain what a noun is.
Thanks to the Yahoo! Style writers, we now have an opportunity to fill in the missing word in an online version of Mad Libs;
Is the missing word butt: Thanks to the Kardashian’s butt? Hard to tell since we don’t know which Kardashian this caption refers to. You’d think it would refer to all Kardashians, wouldn’t you?
There are so many things wrong with this paragraph from Yahoo! Style that if I were writer’s editor, I’d throw it back at her and say, “Try again, honey. It’s not worth my time to try to fix this.”
Is it really that bad? Yes. Yes, it is. An editor could change the pronouns their and they to its and it, since they seem to refer to Milan. And an editor could add the word the before Milanese’s and change that to the plural possessive Milaneses’. But the sentence still wouldn’t make any sense. It’s a straight-up (notice the hyphen?) mess. It’s a throwback (notice it’s one word?) to the days of our youth, before we knew about grammar and spelling and punctuation and sentences with actual verbs.
But that’s not all. The Cure should be The Cure’s and the random capitalization of some of those song titles has me scratching my head and dusting the dandruff off my keyboard. And the noun throwback is still one word.
You know the old saying “it’s better to write fast than to write well”? No? That’s because I made it up after reading this on Yahoo! Style:
I’m trying to come up with a reason for so many errors, like the missing punctuation in what should be ’70s, and the use of its for the contraction it’s. And more missing punctuation and the misspelling of granddad. And why the writer would call this sweater a “sleeves sweater”:
It’s a sleeveless sweater or a vest or even a sweater vest.
But why so many errors? I can only surmise that the writer was under an incredible time crunch, that she’s not a great typist and that she hasn’t completely mastered English. And the company she works for has very, very low standards for content. Maybe even no standards.
And you thought that William Christopher’s character on M*A*S*H was Father Mulcahy? That really was not the character’s name, according to the Einsteins at yahoo.com:
Why did the editors think that the name required quotation marks except to indicate it was the character’s so-called name? I guess if they were writing about characters in a Shakespearean play they’d refer to “Romeo” and “Juliet.” And they’d be wrong about that, too.