Ratings for writer charlieinsik
 |
Real name Username |
Charles Tiu charlieinsik |
Would you like to have your article written by this writer?  |
|
| Overall rating |  | |||
| I am the best there is. | ||||
Rated with
by mayateam 2012-12-11Rated with
by mayateam 2012-12-11Rated with
by craftyone 2012-12-10Rated with
by nidfat 2012-12-09Rated with
by nidfat 2012-12-09good job
Rated with
by kpierreh 2012-12-08Not impressive, instead of describing how attractive the condo is, you are trying to explain to users where is the location.
And vocab used are very normal.
And vocab used are very normal.
Rated with
by iwriter_newegg 2012-12-07Rated with
by rokio2000 2012-12-07Rated with
by rokio2000 2012-12-07Rated with
by rokio2000 2012-12-07Rated with
by rokio2000 2012-12-07Rated with
by rokio2000 2012-12-07Rated with
by rokio2000 2012-12-07Rated with
by theguruland 2012-12-07Rated with
by checkmate0 2012-12-06grammar erros make article hard to understand
Rated with
by NatashaTEAM 2012-12-03Rated with
by NatashaTEAM 2012-12-03Rated with
by louisianadoc 2012-12-01good work short and concise
Rated with
by usdachoice 2012-12-01I have a very synonymous copy of this one awhile back, so no.
Rated with
by usdachoice 2012-12-01Rated with
by ceciliafly 2012-11-30Sorry as I wrote in Article Purpose I need your own experience or a fictional story, but you didn't follow it, instead, wrote in a "research" style. Thanks for the try but after reading, I think your writing style may not fit the rewrite either.
Rated with
by NatashaTEAM 2012-11-30Rated with
by NatashaTEAM 2012-11-30grammar and vocabulary are poor
Rated with
by cedgefit123 2012-11-30Does not meet Special Instruction Criteria. Had many incomplete sentences.
Rated with
by usdachoice 2012-11-30Already have a synonymous copy of this article.
Rated with
by usdachoice 2012-11-30Should have reread or proofread before submitting since there are grammatical errors.
Rated with
by headStrom 2012-11-30ok
Rated with
by bhartzer 2012-11-29This is a well written article.
Rated with
by usdachoice 2012-11-29Rated with
by usdachoice 2012-11-29Rated with
by malusigp 2012-11-29not very well written and worded
Rated with
by cybermacz 2012-11-28Very good article written in short time. After one review it completly met my expectations. I am fully satisfied. Thank you.
Rated with
by krisdmd 2012-11-28Rated with
by zedek777 2012-11-28thanks for your work
Rated with
by rradice 2012-11-27It was not specific to the real estate industry and made very broad generalizations about Twitter that wasn't accurate.
Rated with
by jokerwinner 2012-11-23i'm sorry.
Rated with
by takenotice 2012-11-21This article is not written in fluent English. It doesn't even make sense in certain parts. Written as a child would write.
Rated with
by makeusawebsite 2012-11-21Rated with
by bobjones12 2012-11-19Rated with
by bobjones12 2012-11-19Content does not fit topic
Rated with
by bobjones12 2012-11-19Rated with
by bobjones12 2012-11-19Rated with
by bobjones12 2012-11-19Rated with
by Helena 2012-11-11Rated with
by glorifierx 2012-11-08Gd try!
Rated with
by glorifierx 2012-11-08Good try!
Rated with
by Helena 2012-11-08That's not what I need. Sorry.
Rated with
by coaching 2012-11-07Rated with
by SammyJayJay 2012-11-07Too keyword stuffed.
Responded with comment: I could have edited the article for you.
Rated with
by SammyJayJay 2012-11-07Good job.. not too similar to my other article.. thanks
