what do you think of the quality of this article?

I am a designer/ developer. Me and my friend has started a finance niche website targeting resident Indians and Non residing Indians.

Thought to share an article link to understand this quality okay for the website? or what you think about the overall content.

Appreciate your time. Thanks

Here is the link:
http://www.want2rich.com/2011/05/pe...used-in-credit-card-industry-to-detect-fraud/

 

It's okay but I believe it can be better

 

Thanks for your valued time.

 

easy to understand, precise word, to the point, good for common people that need information about their plastic money.

 

I'd run a grammar check on it if I was you.

 

from what i see . Its pretty long . But its a good read . Simple to the point . And i agree about the grammer check .
but other than that . This was a pretty cool article !

 

it looks good but the content writing needs some improvement

 

Thanks, will be careful next time.

 

Would you mind sharing what kind of improvement? Thanks.

 

I think he just means the grammar boo-boos.
For example, my inhouse grammar checking script brought up a bunch of them - here's one at random:-

Credit card fraud is the most common type of identity crime and MISSING 'IS' on the rise.

 

Nice article, do check the Grammar, thats the only things holding a quality article.

 

Thanks for pointing out. It slipped through MSWord. Would you mind sharing such script name? Thanks

 

nice dude learn little grammar you will be fine

 

Sorry, it's inhouse, and we don't sell it. It's too valuable.

 

In overall, it's readable. I think it's fine for Google, but won't build readership.

 

I think it's informative and supportive enough for your aim, it's clear and brief. However if I were in your shoes, I would begin with the fact of credit card fraud as I think it would make readers be more impressive

 

Hi,There are problems with a bit of the grammar. For instance, in the title it should be "fraud" not "frauds." Also, in the body of the text it should be "investments in research," not "investments on research. It seems that there are problems with little words here and there. The article is understandable though. Keep at it!