Thread:Shabook/@comment-3164086-20150107184150

Shabook,

I've reverted most of the revisions you made to my edits on the Sandbox article. Here are my reasons:

“During this mission” keeps continuity with the paragraph above and helps keep the reader engaged.

The first sentence of the helmet section was edited extensively by both you and me. This is a run-on sentence that I felt should remain one, therefore, I used a colon, not a comma, to break it up, as the colon provides a more effective break for the reader.

I’ve left your rewrite of the “pandemic” part in the edit. Personally, I feel that the couple words of background gave the article just a little bit more integrity (seeing as how those events coordinated with the sandbox), but it’s also fine how you wrote it.

Both of our edits about S.H.I.E.L.D. ordering Coulson to dump Simmons changed the sentence in which this was stated. For both, “an order which included” and “an order that would include” are past tense, and so correct in that respect. However, your use of the word “would” implies that the order will later include her, as opposed to mine, which simply puts a present order in the past tense.

The bit of background here about the virus being neutralized provides information for what happened to Jemma Simmons, the “infected cargo.” It is important in this respect.

Coulson did arrive with his team at the sandbox, so I cannot understand why you removed that little tidbit.

Your edit places a very incorrect comma to break up a sentence, the first one in the second paragraph of the helmet setence. Even removing that, the article reads choppily. My edit, on the other hand, moves one event into another (as Blake only talked to Coulson after the helmet was taken from the plane).

I’ve left in your little bit about disobeying a direct order from headquarters. I should have seen to include that, and so respect its placement by you.

I’ve also left the final sentence of this edit the same. It reads fine either way, so there’s little reason to change it.

Now, onto Donnie Gill. Your edit places the word “powers” twice within the same sentence. With words that are not pronouns, this is very bad form, which is why I’ve replaced one with the word “abilities” instead.

I’ve left the “in case of need” bit, but had to expand upon it, as that sentence does not read well ending that openly: in case of need? What need?

I've stated above the exact reasons why I changed the article from what you wrote, changes which made it either read better or sit in line with the English language. Please, talk to me about further changes to my specific edits so that we can work things out together.

- Master Tej - 