• One typographical issue.
• One issue concerning the "since" wording.

• "From" is spelled out; do we "say" to ourselves "to" when we read "1964–1979"?
• Which two words in the second clause are unnecessary?

He was a teen pop idol from 1964–1979 1964 to 1979, and since then he has since forged a career as an adult contemporary singer.

• "Then" is unnecessary if "since" is there.
• The second "he" can be removed through ellipsis—that is, it's at the very start and the reader will silently carry it over into the second clause if it's removed; oddly enough, this helps the cohesion of the text by forcing the reader to psychologically bind together the two clauses.

What's the relationship between the two clauses (either side of the comma)? How are these statements connected logically?

Joining the two statements with "and" belies the causality: it's because they'd won five consecutive elections that they'd been in power so long. But don't use "because".

The Liberal Party had governed the nation since 1935, and had having won five consecutive elections.

Now the causal logic is clear.

• Is "were" the right tense?
• Do you increase a welfare state?

The Liberals were generally had generally been successful: during their period in office, the nation had prospered and had built a stronger welfare state.

The welfare state bit is only one way of clarifying it.

So he chaired the Committee for 31 years? Two US presidential administrations couldn't possibly last for 31 years (16 is the theoretical maximum).

What a difference a comma would make.

His father was a lawyer, a judge, and for 31 years a Congressman, who chaired the House Naval Affairs Committee during the Harding and Coolidge administrations.

The comma clarifies that he was a "Congressman" for 31 years, not the chair of the committee for 31 years.

• An article is required (a, an, or the).
• What does it refer back to?

The smaller South Korean army suffered from a widespread lack of organisation and equipment, and it was unprepared for war.

• Avoid telegram language: one rule of thumb is, "If there's an of to the right of a noun, use the (or a or an) to the left"; it usually works. Here the relevant noun is a compound: widespread lack.
• There should be no doubt what a back-reference refers to. It doesn't matter that a careful reading tells the reader that "it" refers to the compound noun "the smaller South Korean army"; there's another singular noun—also a compound noun ("widespread lack of organisation and equipment"). "The smaller South Korean army" is clearly the overall subject of the sentence, so make this subject work for both parts of the sentence. Again, it's achieved by not saying it twice, forcing the reader to silently insert it (ellipsis).

What's the relationship between the clauses (separated by the comma)? Which part of the first clause does the second clause refer back to?

So the proposed construction attracted support from Bellamy? The intended meaning is probably means something very different.

A protest group was formed to resist the proposed construction, which and attracted support from the botanist and environmental campaigner David Bellamy.

Now it's clear that the protest group attracted Bellamy's support, not the construction.

A problem of logical cohesion between the two sentences.

Navenby, which has Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval heritage, was made a market-town with charters from Edward the Confessor, William Rufus, and Richard II. However, the market fell into disuse in the early 19th century.

Navenby, which has Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval heritage, was made a market-town with charters from Edward the Confessor, William Rufus, and Richard II; however, despite this long heritage, the market fell into disuse in the early 19th century.

However tells your reader that you're going to contradict or change the previous angle in some way; but just how this is the case is not sufficiently clear. We've guessed that the writer's point is ironic, and reinforced the close relationship with a semicolon rather than a period.

The bumpety-bump punctuation and the separation of wording that belongs together.

The middle phrase ("in an FA Cup final").

Move the middle phrase ("in an FA Cup final").

Montgomery's feat is often described as the most famous save of all time in an FA Cup final'.

• Now try two harder examples from the same Wikipedia article, below.

The order of ideas in the sentence is the problem.

Sunderland required only a draw in their final game against rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match, to secure promotion.

Can you work out how to reposition the last phrase so it's not stuck out at the end of a long sentence?

To secure promotion, Sunderland required only a draw in their final game against rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match.

The order and relative length of the ideas, and the punctuation.

The first chain is too long; the second fragment (after the semicolon) is too short. Try recasting the join between them, including a different punctuation mark and different grammar.

Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game; this was mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery, who saved in quick succession two of Peter Lorimer's shots at the goal.

The relationship between the two segments in the sentence is ambiguous.

The Association ranks her as the eighth-best-selling female artist in American music history, having sold 32 million albums in the US.

Having sold 32 million albums in the US, she is ranked by the Association as the eighth-best-selling female artist in American music history.

Reversing the order of the segments and using the passive voice is one way of ensuring that it is she and not the Association is clearly conveyed as having sold 32 million albums in the US. We usually try to ration the use of the passive voice, but here it works quite well.

The first word—what does the "as" mean? Could it be ambiguous?

This is one of a number of possibilities for the "as"-as-causal meaning. It was suggested by SashaMarievskaya as an improvement to my previous offering. The causality is shifted into a new sentence: While Brazil's economy was losing steam, its relations with Argentina were warming. This led the Brazilian government to request that Armstrong remove the third dreadnought from the contract.

If you want the "as" as at-the-same-time-as meaning, perhaps this:

While Brazil's relations with Argentina were warming and the country's economic boom was losing steam, the government negotiated with Armstrong to remove the third dreadnought from the contract.

Even when the reader can work out whether it's a because as or an at the same time as as, it's often good to reword so there's no doubt. This is a good example because it was hard to know which was intended, even in the larger context of the paragraph.

• Unnecessary little grammatical words.
• A redundant "temporal" word; the job is done by the tense.

Ima worked closely with architect John Staub to design the house so that it would show off the art the family had already purchased.

Ima worked closely with architect John Staub to design the a house so that it would show off the art the family had already purchased.

• The grammar is simpler and more succinct.
• "A" rather than "the" is appropriate, since the house—especially in the changed grammatical environment—is one of a class of houses that could be designed for that purpose, not the only one.
• "Already" is redundant in the light of the past tense (unless it's required for some particular emphasis, which was not the case in this context).
• "That" has a quite different grammatical role now; in effect it's been removed and reinserted under a different guise. Only by coincidence does the word still appear in the solution.

• Is "concern over a potential" the most direct way to express what underlies a design challenge? Is "potentially" necessary, anyway?
• There's an ungainly grammatical construction in the middle ("water knocking people down" is a bit clumsy).
• There's an "-ing ... -ing" repetition; it's OK, but removing it would be nicer.

Concern over the spouting water potentially knocking people down made the design both a legal and a physical challenge.

The risk that the spouting water would knock people down was both a legal and physical design challenge.

This is a long-winded explanation, so if you understand the solution just by looking at it, please move on.

• The risk is more direct than concern over, and allows us to dispense with the inelegant "potentially".
• The "noun + -ing" problem was easy to overcome by using "that"; this also eliminates the "-ing ... -ing" repetition. See Exercise 14 below for more on this.
• Using the verb be (here, was) is a plainer, more direct wording: "X was a challenge" rather than "X made Y a challenge". "Y" ("the design") is now tidily snuck in as a mere adjective to "challenge".

• This could be said in many fewer words: consider conflating it into a single sentence to avoid the repetition.
• Pick out the bits you don't like and check below in the hint.

The bits we don't like are in orange. The repetition is underlined. See if this helps you to think of a neater solution.

• Artificial turf was installed because it was easier to maintain than natural grass. The potential damage to a natural grass field caused by Seattle's frequent rain also made the surface an appropriate option.

Artificial turf was installed because it was easier to maintain than natural grass, and would be less vulnerable to damage from Seattle's frequent rain.

[Why is this better than the problem text above?]

• The ellipsis avoids repetition ("and it would be less vulnerable") and retains "artificial turf" as the subject throughout.
• "Natural grass" doesn't even need to be repeated, since there's now a comparative "less". "Less", then, is a back-reference, and holds the two clauses together.
• The verbose gobbledygook has been replaced with more cohesive wording: 33 words are now 24. "Also" has morphed into "and", which performs a useful task in linking the two clauses.

It's ambiguous. What are the two possible meanings? Even if one of them is much less likely than the other, the "fork" in meaning makes readers work a little harder.

The two possible meanings are:

1. people became associated with IP addresses after sufficient downloading activity had been recorded; or
2. Odex sent letters of demand to those people after sufficient downloading activity had been recorded.

Clearly, the second meaning is intended. How do you reword to force this meaning?

Reverse the order of the clauses.

After sufficient downloading activity had been recorded, Odex sent letters of demand to people associated with the IP addresses.

• Easy-peasy. But the hardest thing was to pick up that it was ambiguous in the first place. Good editors learn to scrutinise every sentence for possible multiple meanings.
• Adding "the" eliminates the sense that anyone associated with any IP address got a letter of demand. "The" means, "You know the ones I mean: it's common knowledge, or it's already in the text."

Exactly as alarmed as each other? This might be called a false equative, or a forced equality.

Both Soviet and East German regimes were alarmed by the problem.

Other solutions are possible, including statements that retain the "protégé" idea; it depends on the context. In the same article, there was another forced equative: "The East German government had an equally important incentive [as the West German government]"—was it exactly equal?"

Note that where it's "A plus B", as here, you can often do without the two "the"s (i.e. "Both the Soviet and the East German regimes ..."); binning pairs of "the" is surprisingly elegant and entirely grammatical.

[As an aside while we're talking of equatives, let's decry this tired and cumbersome attempt at elegance: "Three earthquakes in as many months"; or the ludicrous example once heard on ABC Radio news: "One incident in as many months". Pffff.]

This is a list. There's a problem in the way the items are organised; it's not to do with their order.

How many items are there in this running list? Four?

There are four in a way, but on a higher structural level there are only three, concerning (1) "the drug"; (2) "dosing", and (3) "the devices". It's really 1, 2, and 3a plus 3b.

DPIs have many advantages over liquid nebulisers: the drug is more stable, dosing is rapid, and the devices are less expensive and can be manufactured in a disposable form.

Here it is again, with the numbers interpolated:

"DPIs have many advantages over liquid nebulisers: (1→) the drug is more stable, (2→) dosing is rapid, and the devices (3a→) are less expensive and (3b→) can be manufactured in a disposable form."

Avoiding the comma between 3a and 3b stresses their connectedness ("devices" is their common subject).

So the dragging under the water wasn't violent?

Relocate "violent". You might also need a different verb for the "under the water" bit.

Chrissie Watkins, a 23-year-old woman, leaves an evening beach party to go skinny-dipping in the Atlantic Ocean, only to be violently dragged back and forth violently on the surface and then pulled under the water.

The compound hyphenated structure is clunky, especially with WP's unit conversion. Is there a simple solution?

Try rearranging the order of the wording within "a new 301-foot (92 m)-tall swing ride"; you'll need to change the grammar.

"a swing ride ...".

The main attraction will be a new swing ride 301 feet (92 m) tall, known as WindSeeker.

Even without Wikipedia's necessary binary international/US unit conversions, this is a cumbersome expression, and strictly speaking requires a triple unit, hyphenated: "The castle is oval, with an 11-metre-wide stone curtain wall."

Change the word order.

The castle is oval, with a stone curtain wall 11 metres (35 ft) wide.

Smoother, and no hyphens are required.

One word could be removed, to bring two benefits.

Use the technique of ellipsis.

The castle has been the subject of antiquarian studies since the 18th century, and it was originally thought to have been the location of an Iron Age hill fort.

Two benefits. First, the ellipsis, in which the readers effortlessly assume the invisible presence of the now-missing word; this is neater. Second, "it" could have referred two singular nouns: "the 18th century", "the subject", or "the castle", and the reader has to work just a little to get over that fuzziness, even though it's obvious "it" doesn't refer to "the 18th century".

Punctuation / sentence structure.

Buckton Castle was probably built by William de Neville, Lord of Longdendale, in the late 12th century; which would make it contemporary with other castles in Greater Manchester, such as Dunham and Stockport.

• This is the opposite of a comma splice, in which a comma is wrongly inserted before a fully grammatical, stand-alone sentence.

..., in the late 12th century, which would make it contemporary with other castles in Greater Manchester, such as Dunham and Stockport.

• But now there's a succession of commas, so it might be better to retain the semicolon and make the text that follows it a proper sentence:

• • ..., in the late 12th century; this would make it contemporary with other castles in Greater Manchester such as Dunham and Stockport.

• What Cope and Darwin each focused on needs to be grammatically parallel, or at least logically connected.
• "Evolution in changing structural terms" is a little hard.

Due to his background in taxonomy and paleontology, Cope focused on evolution in terms of changing structure, rather than Darwin's strategy of emphasising geography and variation within populations.

This is only one way of doing it.

Is it a causal as or an at-the-same-time-as as? "As" in this sense is a badly engineered word in English and is often better substituted. Peter Lee is over-described if "two more than" is there. Lose four words and simplify the structure to avoid the "as" problem.

In 2009, he finished the season with a career total of 215 goals, breaking Peter Lee's OHL record by two.

"Design" appears twice, which is a little boring. It links the two ideas in the sentence causally, but this causal relationship doesn't need to be explicitly flagged by a word like "as".

The first is:

• "Three blades minimise forces related to material fatigue, and are the most common design for modern wind turbines."

Alternatively, you could change the grammatical theme (the writer's point of departure for the message, the "what I'm going to tell you about"):

• "The most common design for modern windmills is a three-blade turbine, which minimises forces related to material fatigue."

For one angle on grammatical theme, see Thematic equative.

The logical connection between two phrases.

St-Calais continued to hold out in Durham, claiming he had never rebelled. When the king approached with an army, St-Calais agreed to come out, but only after receiving a safe conduct that would allow him to attend a trial while his men continued to hold the castle. From his actions, it appears likely that St-Calais did rebel, whatever his claims to the contrary, although northern chronicles maintained his innocence.

Where should the contrast be? Between his claims and what the northern chronicles reported, or is there a more basic contrast?

Both "whatever his claims to the contrary" and the fact that "northern chronicles maintained his innocence" seem to be on the same side of the conflict between (1) what his actions suggested, and (2) recorded reports of verbal statements. Therefore, although shouldn't contrast the two phrases that are expressing (2); there's another word present that can do the job of contrasting (1) and (2).

St-Calais continued to hold out in Durham, claiming he had never rebelled. When the king approached with an army, St-Calais agreed to come out, but only after receiving a safe conduct that would allow him to attend a trial while his men continued to hold the castle. St-Calais's actions suggest that he did rebel, whatever his claims to the contrary and statements of his innocence in northern chronicles.

"Whatever" now provides the critical logical contrast between what his actions suggested and the verbal claims.

• A wrong word.
• A problem of logic and of vagueness.
• A MoS breach.
• A false comparison.

Agriculture continues to be a major part of the economy of Somerset. Apple orchards were once plentiful, and to this day the county is linked to the production of strong cider. The unemployment rate in the county is lower than the surrounding counties. The largest employment sectors are retail, manufacturing, leisure/tourism and health/social care.

Agriculture continues to be a major part of the economy of Somerset. Apple orchards were once plentiful have been plentiful for more than [?five] centuries, and to this day the county is linked to known for the production of strong cider. The unemployment rate in the county is lower than that of the surrounding counties. The largest employment sectors are retail, manufacturing, leisure/tourism leisure and tourism, and health/social care health and social care.

• The problem of logic and of vagueness: "Once" suggests that the orchards were plentiful at some time in the past and are no longer so; but the subsequent clause implies that plentiful orchards have ever since been and still are plentiful, since the county is known for its apple cider. An indication is required of when "in the past" this was, even if as vague as "for at least five centuries". We have guessed a solution; the author would need to be asked to check this.
• The wrong words: "Linked to" is ambiguous; "known for" is presumably what the author intended.
• The false comparison: The unemployment rate in Somerset is being compared with the unemployment rate in the surrounding counties, not with the counties themselves; "that of" can be inserted to stand for "the unemployment rate of" those other counties; then the comparison is valid.
• The MoS breach: Slashes are usually avoided.

• A word that is probably redundant.
• Missing commas (three could be added).
• A word that is inconsistently applied in one place but not another.
• A potentially misleading lexical item (word).
• A verb that is used wrongly in active voice.
• A missing hyphen.
• A character that may need to be changed in case (upper to lower, or lower to upper).

Jane Zhang (born 11 October 1984) also known as Zhang Liangying is a Chinese pop singer who came to prominence when she placed third in the 2005 season of the Super Girl contest a national all female singing competition held in the People's Republic of China. Throughout the competition, she sang in English, Spanish and Cantonese in addition to Mandarin Chinese.

Jane Zhang (born 11 October 1984), also known as Zhang Liangying, is a Chinese pop singer who came to prominence when she was placed third in the 2005 season of the Super Girl contest Contest, a national all-female singing competition held in the People's Republic of China. Throughout During the competition, she sang in English, Spanish and Cantonese in addition to Mandarin Chinese.

• Three commas are required: the first two are boundaries for a nested phrase ("also known as Zhang Liangying"); the third is an "equative" comma, meaning "that is".
• "Placed" can't refer to what she does, but to what is done to her; the passive voice must be used ("was placed").
• A hyphen is required for "all-female", which is a double adjective. This is the case even in AmEng. See MOS on hyphens.
• An upper-case "C" is required, for "Contest", since it's part of the title of the competition; this can be confirmed at the linked article and the link re-piped.
• "Held" is hardly necessary, since all competitions are held, and we're told its country of location.
• "Throughout" may imply that she sang from start to finish in a mixture of all four languages; while this is an unlikely meaning, it is clearer to use "during", which doesn't convey the start-to-finish meaning.
• "Chinese" is used to qualify "Mandarin", but not "Cantonese"; however, both are Chinese languages. It's probably acceptable to remove "Chinese" altogether, since China is central to the topic and both languages were linked. Re-pipe the link.
• There's one more issue: the list of languages at the end finishes with "in addition to"; why the marked form of "and" is used is unclear. Is Mandarin somehow different from the rest of the list? Perhaps it's her native language, but it's all a mystery to the poor reader.

• An unnecessary repetition.
• A missing hyphen.
• An ugly word that has a common, shorter equivalent.
• An old-fashioned word.
• Opportunities for neater expression in two places.
• An opportunity to split an over-long sentence.

Incorporating a number of new developments in British steam locomotive technology, the Packets were amongst the first designs to utilise welding in the construction process, which meant that components could be more easily constructed during the wartime austerity and post war economy.

Incorporating a number of new developments in steam locomotive technology, the Packets were among the first designs to use welding in the construction process; this enabled the easier fabrication of components during the austerity of the wartime and post-war economy.

• "Amongst" is better as the plainer and shorter "among".
• "Utilise" is a very ugly word for "use".
• The second occurrence of "construction/constructed" can be avoided by substituting it with "fabrication".
• "Post-war" is a double adjective before "economy", and should therefore be hyphenated.
• The comma after "process" is turned into a semicolon to enable the readers to pause and gather their thoughts momentarily; the next clause is turned into a grammatical sentence starting with "this", not "which". In any case, "which meant that" is clumsy; better to say it plainly.
• During austerity isn't quite right, and the meaning is clearly that both the war and the post-war period involved economic austerity. We've presented one way of rewording, which would need to be confirmed by the FAC nominator.
• A user has suggested that "a number of" and "new" may be redundant. Removing "a number of" could emphasise the global significance of the developments: "a number of" seems to constrain the claim a little; I agree that in some circumstances, "a number of" is just clutter. "New developments" is probably not redundant, since it contrasts with existing or previous developments (which may not yet have been incorporated).

• Three cases of redundant wording. Read the text as running on directly from the previous exercise.
• A clash between animate and inanimate entities.
• A false contrast (a problem of logical flow).
• The use of two expressions of very similar meaning, where a common expression would make the text more cohesive.
• An opportunity to split an over-long sentence and at the same time to avoid ambiguity.

The locomotives also featured Bulleid's innovative, though controversial chain-driven valve gear and the inclusion of thermic syphons. The class members were named after the Merchant Navy shipping lines involved in the Battle of the Atlantic, and latterly those which used Southampton Docks, an astute publicity masterstroke by the Southern Railway, who operated Southampton Docks during the period.

The locomotives also featured thermic syphons and Bulleid's innovative, though controversial chain-driven valve gear. The class members were named after the Merchant Navy shipping lines involved in the Battle of the Atlantic, and latterly those which used Southampton Docks; this was an astute a publicity masterstroke by the Southern Railway, who which operated Southampton Docks during the period.

• Redundant wording. First, even when you read this as running on directly from the previous exercise text, you don't need to be told that this is another attribute of the locomotives: it's stronger without also. Second, we don't need both featured and the inclusion of. Pure fluff, since if something is featured, it is included.
• Innovation and controversy often go together; they certainly don't want to be marked as an unusual combination by though.
• Long-sentence indigestion: give your readers a break and split it; the semicolon boundary and the this was back-connector will help them to connect the publicity masterstroke with the action of naming the ships, right back at the start of the sentence.
• What masterstroke isn't astute?
• The Docks and the Southern Railway might have been operated by people, but they were both corporate entities and deserve which, not who.