# data[].attributes.body
Reeds revisons keep the tone of the original argument. She suggests explanations for cultural context that would not be easily understood by everyone. This gives more clarity within the article by considering the various audiences it will be read by.

# data[].attributes.body
This adaptation introduces significant bias by inserting personal opinions that shift the article’s stance. Editorial additions such as unsupported claims and value judgments overstep ethical editing boundaries and take away from the credibility of the original facts and data.

# data[].attributes.body
Mistry shows some awareness of a Southern American audience by adjusting punctuation and converting rupees to U.S. dollars. However, the article is largely unedited, and the retention of British spellings and idiomatic phrases create confusion rather than connection for American readers.

# data[].attributes.body
Reed does a good job making her revisions easy to follow, particularly when explaining Indian institutions and cultural assumptions that may be unfamiliar to U.S. audiences. The visual and structural distinctions between the original text and annotations make it easily understandable.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is well researched and addresses an important public issue. However, the tone occasionally becomes persuasive rather than neutral. For a U.S. newspaper audience, maintaining a more objective voice would improve credibility and ensure the article informs rather than influences readers.

# data[].attributes.body
Rouche’s article nearly entirely rewrote the original article. He added his own opinion, which takes away from the facts and data of the article. While this made the article easier to read, it diminishes the message by introducing author bias.

# data[].attributes.body
The Mistry article’s edits focused primarily on translating cultural aspects, such as converting rupees to dollars. She did not provide any further context or background, and her edits were purely punctuation and grammar based.

# data[].attributes.body
Lisa Reed's article adapts the original by adding annotations to explain and simplify sections of the text. Reed especially adds comments on any section that may have any cultural context that could affect a reader’s point of view. I would suggest that she add a couple more annotations explaining the context and background.

# data[].attributes.body
The Harcourt article did an excellent job of rewriting sections to help the audience better understand and relate to it. They did not add too much extra text; however, they could have adjusted some of the phrasing to better reflect American spellings.

# data[].attributes.body
Reed does a goodjob making it simple to see the revisions. Especially regarding Indian institutions and cultural assumptions.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is researched well and addresses the important public health issue. The tone should be made more neutral for an American newspaper audience. Overall, this was my favorite rewrite.

# data[].attributes.body
Harcourt may have allowed their biases to enter into the writing a bit. I think it has generally a good balance but it tends to change things to make it more readable for southern readers, which could alter the meaning of the article.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides minor fixes. It really is more of an edit than anything else. I think American audiences would still have confusion when reading th article.

# data[].attributes.body
Reed really does the best job in my opinion. She wants to add clarity in her writing so that American audiences will understand it. She doesn't want to change the opinions or facts in the article, just make it easier to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
Strikes the best balance: faithful to the original facts and intent, while making the story readable, relatable, and culturally appropriate for small-town Southern readers. It fulfills the goal of turning a policy-heavy advocacy report into a compelling human-interest piece.

Harcourt does the best job of “translating” the original piece for a small-town Southern U.S. newspaper human-interest audience.

Key strengths:

Americanizes language and style

Changes British spellings: behaviour → behavior, modernisation → modernization, paediatric → pediatric

Uses standard American punctuation and sentence flow

Adds helpful context for American readers (this is the biggest improvement):

Explains “WHO (World Health Organization)”

Explains “chemist [pharmacist]”

Clearly states: “Unlike here in the United States, clean water is not widely available in India” and explains why mixing formula with dirty water is dangerous

*This is crucial because the entire health risk argument depends on lack of clean water — most Southern readers wouldn’t automatically know this.

Shifts tone toward human interest

New title: “The Impact of Bottle Feeding on Indian Children” — more personal and emotional than the original dramatic “The Killer Still at Large”

Keeps the tragic hospital story (55% bottle-fed babies, 13 deaths) but presents it more clearly

Softens bias without removing the core message

Acknowledges that “some change is beneficial, and other change is benign” before criticizing profit-driven marketing

Rephrases the final paragraph as a question: “is it fair to say… In Indian culture, the answer seems to be ‘yes.’”

*This presents the original viewpoint as a cultural perspective rather than a universal moral command, which feels less preachy to American readers.

Maintains journalistic neutrality better than the others

# data[].attributes.body
Almost no changes. Keeps British spellings, dense political language, and advocacy tone. Not adapted for a Southern U.S. audience.

# data[].attributes.body
Only minor fixes (rupees → dollars, some punctuation). Still reads like the original Indian report. British spellings and unexplained terms remain.

# data[].attributes.body
Too biased in the opposite direction. Adds pro-formula commentary (“no proof,” “mothers’ responsibility,” “breasts unattractive”) and changes facts (3 deaths → 13). Oversteps ethical editing

# data[].attributes.body
The revision on Rouche's paper showed there was a strong interest in the topic, but opinions overall take away from the paper. Remaining subjective while lacking evidence is not proper for this style of writing.

# data[].attributes.body
This re-write seemed as though Rouche tried to put the original article in a different context completely. Rouche seemed to have re-written the whole article and put in his own options. It was hard to read due to the strong opinions of Rouche.

# data[].attributes.body
This re-write was more of an edited version than actually trying to help the American reader understand the original author. Mistry seemed to be more focused on punctuation and less focused on trying to help the original author make their point more clearer.

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciate that this re-write included more clarity than the other re-writes provided. This author understands where the original author is coming from and it shows in how they understood what the original author was trying to get the audience to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was not completely re-written, but it did change the milk powder to baby formula which helps Americans to better understand. It also added that clean drinking water is not available to everyone which is something the original article did not clarify.

Overall this was the best re-write for the article.

# data[].attributes.body
I would give Reed mostly positive feedback as she makes the article very readable for American viewers. My main critic however, is that she takes this a little too far and, at some points, she over explains some things. For example, Reed writes about adding more background information on Indian living conditions. (2). Although background information is sometimes helpful to better understand an article, I find in this case, a basic understanding of Indian living conditions is common and is all that is needed.

# data[].attributes.body
Rouche's simplified language and use of more well-known American terms (i.e. "baby formula" instead of "milk powder") suggests that he prioritizes an article that is easy to read and understand for his Southern American audience. However, his additions make the article largely an opinion piece without supporting evidence. One of the purposes of editing the original article was to maintain the same bias (commercial formula is inferior and more harmful to infants than breast milk) and present it in a way that would feel directed towards American audiences. While a few grammatical edits supports this, his additional comments do not.

- Jada M.

# data[].attributes.body
Mistry's additional commas and her explanation of what rupees convert to in U.S. dollars suggests some awareness of her Southern American audience. However, the original document was largely unedited, so British spellings and phrases that she believes would be appreciated by Southern Americans (i.e. a damp squib) may actually cause more confusion for (and separation from) her audience.

- Jada M.

# data[].attributes.body
Reed's notes clearly showcase her prioritization and awareness of the Southern American audience potentially reading her article. Her suggestions would've been more effective had they been implemented, especially those that suggested adding background information on events that the average American may not've been aware of (such as Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's speech in Geneva). It is difficult to assess her effectiveness because of the lack of actual changes made to the original document.

- Jada M.

# data[].attributes.body
Harcourt's rewrite was straightforward and easy to read. The sentences were simplified and included appropriate word/phrase changes (i.e. "baby formula" instead of "milk powder) and explanations (i.e. explaining that Rs 150 is roughly around $3) to make it palatable for a Southern American audience. Adding "Unlike here in the United States," to the last sentence in his second paragraph creates a connection to this specific audience. Additionally, addressing the poor and rich in general terms rather than specifically referring to them as India's poor and rich in his last paragraph helps the claims seem more universal and thus worthy of consideration from the average American reading this version of the article.

- Jada M.

# data[].attributes.body
The article was written well. It was cohesive and clearer to what the original intended message was supposed to be, with only the title and a few information pieces being omitted.

# data[].attributes.body
This author wrote the article in a clear and factual way. This style gave the audience an unbiased statement of facts related to the deaths in some babies in the rural population of India who used the baby powder with local water. Although it is a difficult topic to write about, she left her emotions and opinions out of her reporting.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Rouche was able to explain the humanity side of the argument best between all of the writers. The language used explains it in a more simple way and takes the side of a concerned citizen. This allows the audience to understand it and most likely side with it because of its strong use of ethos.

# data[].attributes.body
She wrote the article well and I understood the context of the article and gained information through how she worded the article. She has the least mistakes compared to the other writers.

# data[].attributes.body
Harcourt's rendering was a decent rewrite, though some of his assertions come across as opinion rather than fact, i.e. " Private companies that benefit from breastfeeding engage in unethical marketing practices." That is a broad generalization that, in my opinion, should include examples or statistics.

# data[].attributes.body
Reed's article was clearly written, unbiased, and succinct. Her perspective is unique as she has lived in India and the United States, making her a strong choice to author a rewrite.

# data[].attributes.body
The article was well-written; however, some choices made may alienate the reader. Keeping the British English spelling of words does not demonstrate a consideration of the audience. Historically, the attitude of the United States--particularly the politics of the southern United States--was anti-British. We wrote a Declaration of Independence to formally separate ourselves from Britain. Although this attitude does not appear to exist at the same level of intensity today, traces may still remain.

# data[].attributes.body
Rouche's article attempted a conversational tone and perspective, yet included some--perhaps unintentionally--sexist remarks about women that simply did not add any substance to the article.

# data[].attributes.body
These edits did not keep the reader in mind. The changes made, for the most part, the article more confusing to read. There was no substance that changed the meaning, but only made the original meaning harder to understand for most audiences. It seems as though the edits were made to fit the author's personal style, but not accepted conventions.

- Adithya P

# data[].attributes.body
The article revision was direct and to the point. She provided suggestions and very meaningful remarks. She was aware that this article would have different audiences. She also provided history and background information. Her revision was easy to read.

# data[].attributes.body
I felt as though Reed did a phenomenal job with the edit of this article. I particularly appreciated the fact that she was aware of her differing audiences and made it universally better to not only understand but also to engage with. Reed thought as though her article was "misunderstood", this was an interesting note to pick up on as well as keeping the article neutral and not making it political to upset certain people as that is hard to do. -Priscilla Howie

# data[].attributes.body
Jerry Rouche's revision of the article followed the above guidelines, as it lacked the biases of the other three, and it was well formulated for the designated audience. Jerry's article was precise in its wording and did not aim to sway the readers in either direction. From what was understood, this was the goal of the revision. With that being said, there were several parts of Jerry's revision that could have been left as is. For example, the last two paragraphs, although they could use some minor revision, should have generally been left inside the article. Jerry completely removed what was said in those paragraphs and created a new conclusion. It's one thing to be unbiased, but it is another to hide the truth. It is important to state the facts, whether good or bad.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel as if Rouche's editing was very lackluster. During the first read I was slightly confused due to the changing of the title. He was able to simplify some language making the text more appealing to readers. Inserting his own views and standpoint into the article was unwarranted in my opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was the most advanced and balanced article out of the four as it included specific changes with proper reasonings along with attention to historical details while also maintaining a good flow to the text and making it easier to read for the larger audience. Each change was made carefully with a desired intention to include someone or something whether it's regarding the reader or the material covered. The only change I would suggest is the possible addition of simplified sentences with basic structures and words for that some parts can be read easier for younger or uneducated audiences.

# data[].attributes.body
To me, Harcourt's edited article felt like a casual conversation. The readability was present and the material was easy to follow, but other than connecting various audiences with references and connections, Harcourt failed to give attention to details and historical backgrounds within this topic so that the readers were more informed. I would say that he should look to add more evidence that shows how this issue came to be and more knowledge on India's background and why it has allowed for the issue to get this large.

# data[].attributes.body
From reading Mistry's edited article, I understood that her history and upbringing affected her choices when reading over the material. Specifically, her choice to not edit much of the language and dialect was interesting, because as it may make it easier to read for her and people of Indian origin, it is not necessarily up to date with proper English or easy to follow for other audiences such as Americans. I would say that adhering to a larger audience when making edits to this article would be the most critical change for Mistry's article.

# data[].attributes.headline
I believe that Rouche inserted his own opinions and left out major corrections that would have achieved the desired clarity and accuracy. It was evident to the reader that this editor supports baby formula, and this takes the attention away from the facts and history behind this controversial topic.

# data[].attributes.subject
I believe that Rouche inserted his own opinions and left out major corrections that would have achieved the desired clarity and accuracy. It was evident to the reader that this editor supports baby formula, and this takes the attention away from the facts and history behind this controversial topic.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe Reed effectively edited the article, appreciating her inclusion of reasons for specific changes. Her consideration of the audience was commendable, as she made adjustments by incorporating American translations or spellings where needed.

# data[].attributes.body
Harcourt edited the article in a way that the southern United States audience could understand. He changed all of the words or phrases that didn't make sense in American english. Unlike the other editors, Harcourt had a balance of taking some things out while adding in more things for clarity. Reed was too picky, Mistry barely changed anything, and rouche changed too much.

# data[].attributes.body
Harcourt revised and edited the article in a way that shows his awareness of who the audience is. There are several instances of him providing background information so that the audience can understand what is being discussed in the article. The only issue with Harcourt's revision is his search for anything that is "too dramatic." The problem with this is that he ends up altering the meaning of certain sections of the article that he deems as "too dramatic."

-Joshua Daniel

# data[].attributes.body
Reed gives insightful remarks for the editor to make. She not only gave grammatical suggestions, but she also talked about how the revisions should be more clear for the reader to understand. Something that stood out to me was when Reed described her concern with the article being misunderstood.

# data[].attributes.body
Harcourt revised the article to clearly and ethically convey why baby formula could be impacting children in India negatively. He makes the article less scary and more straightforward. He does this by changing the title, removing unnecessary and scary statements, and expanding on why baby formula is an issue. -Emily Burnsed Section 07

# data[].attributes.body
Rouche did not really edit the article, as was originally expected, he mostly rewrote the article while inserting his own opinions into it. His approach was the least professional and least successful in conveying the point of the original author. He would often reach conclusions based on his own assumptions and present them as though they were as valuable as the conclusions present in the original article that were actually based on statistical proof.

-Jamie Coreas

# data[].attributes.body
Reed kept in mind that this article was going to be published for a different audience than it was originally intended for, and she made editing choices that would make the article easier to understand for that audience. Reed also kept in mind the attitudes and beliefs of the audience making sure that point of the article came across without "stepping on any toes". I think she did the best job in terms of editing because she demonstrated that she knew her audience well without changing the tone and ideas of the original article.

-Jamie Coreas

# data[].attributes.body
Mistry could have made more edits to the article to insure that the reader could understand the point of article without being confused by certain words, and the lack of explanation behind certain aspects of Indian society. She cannot assume the audience for the "Lincoln County Herald" has access to the same information that was assumed was well known to the original audience.

-Jamie Coreas

# data[].attributes.body
Harcourt's revision and edits of the original article are mostly beneficial without changing the original author's point of view. For example Harcourt explains certain aspects of Indian society that the average American audience might be unaware of. Harcourt also makes some grammatical changes and changes certain words that might be less used in American English.

What I did not like about some of Harcourt's revisions is that he eliminated certain parts of the original article that he deemed as "too dramatic" that I feel were vital in conveying the tone of the original author. Those revisions were unnecessary and did not help the audience's understanding of the article, but were based on Harcourt's own opinions and style of writing.

-Jamie Coreas

# data[].attributes.body
The reason I picked Harcourt was because the text is easier on the eyes. His formatting was on point, and it is easier to read. With Lisa essay, having those yellow annotations across the essay impacted my reading. The reason it was impacted was because the icon was blocking some of the text. Another reason why I did not choose Rouche was because he had some readings that were deleted. However, what I can assume from his essay is that it was a draft.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought Harcourt's revision was very successful at condensing and simplifying the article for readers. I also thought the title change was more accurate to the main points of the original article.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought Reed did a successful job editing the article. I liked how she gave reasoning behind why certain changes should be made. I also thought she did a good job keeping her audience in mind and changing certain words to American translations or spellings.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like Mistry made too few editing changes on the article. Rather than focusing on just punctuation or smaller changes she could have focused on condensing or sentence structure to improve the article even more. Also I disagree with keeping the British spellings as I believe she should focus on the southern audience and cater it to them with americanized spellings.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought Rouche's editing was one of the least successful. The title change was slightly misleading since the original article mainly discusses India. I also thought it was unprofessional to insert his own opinions into the edited version.

# data[].attributes.body
I felt that Reed was able to pin point a lot of issues with the way that the article flows. Reed also points out any issues that might not be easily understood from a different culture's point of view. Understanding your audience is very important.

# data[].attributes.body
Rouche’s approach to the article started off reasonable in his attempt to Americanize it for his audience’s understanding, but it quickly became offensive and riddled with bias against women.

# data[].attributes.body
Mistry’s approach the the article did not improve upon it very much. There is some benefit to her style of keeping the language the same to reflect the culture it comes from, but her minor adjustments overall do not do much for the article.

# data[].attributes.body
Reed’s approach to editing the article was responsible and culturally aware. Her knowledge in both cultures and her initiative to ask questions about the content make it the most clarifying revision.

# data[].attributes.body
Harcourt’s revision of the article makes it easier for American’s to read, but maybe not much easier to understand. His switch to American language by using the terms baby and baby food/ formula is very familiar to an American reader, but he does not use this simplification to shed light on the situation. Whether or not it is moral to advise Indian mothers to use formula or not is not clarified or approached any more responsibly.

# data[].attributes.body
Lisa Reed's alterations allowed for the article to be consistent despite changes being made. This consistency and coherence to the original article allows for readers to develop a better understanding, and meaning was not misconstrued as a result of these changes.

Jillian J

# data[].attributes.body
Mistry managed to change the article in a way that allowed it to remain true to its individual style. With that being said, however, more changes should have been made in a grammatical sense, instead of stylistic/word choices in order to make this article easier for readers to digest.

Jillian J

# data[].attributes.body
I would say, upon my perusal of Rouche's alteration of the article, that his argument started off strong, but quickly became misconstrued. By the end of the article, it seemed as though Rouche's bias was peeking through perhaps a little bit too much, and that made the article difficult to read.

Jillian J

# data[].attributes.body
Fenton Harcourt edited this particular article in such fashion that allows for easier perusal. In addition to these editing skills, Harcourt's improvements on both content and title gave the reader more ease of reading as well.

Jillian J

# data[].attributes.body
I am unsure why but my computer will not let me access Harcourt's edit.

Madison P

# data[].attributes.body
Rouche made edits allowing the article to be more understood by Americans by changing the title and translating words. Although Rouche's words are more easily understood at the same time, more so towards the end of the article it seems to be more of an argument piece on why baby formula shouldn't be banned.

Madison P

# data[].attributes.body
There was very little editing done by Mistry. I will say, she wanted the article to keep its "international flavor" which a wonderful concept. However, definitions or explanations for certain terms should be considered as it is an international article. To someone living in the United States the word "chemist" might be confusing as our chemist holds a completely different job description than India's chemist (a pharmacist). Although a word such as "behaviour" is most likely understandable to American.

Madison P

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, Reed does a good job giving feedback to make the article adequate for various audiences. In addition, she asks for further information which would give the reader more knowledge about the main idea of the article.

Madison P

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, Lisa Reed considers different backgrounds, to adhere to wider audiences. She also made her word usage more universal to audiences.
-Ella Wilkins

# data[].attributes.body
Fenton Harcourt altered the article in a way that clarified many things and made the article easy to read. Also, the renaming of the article was good because it gave the reader an actual idea of what the article would be about.

# data[].attributes.body
Lisa Reed did a really good job explaining everything. Base on her experience in both cultures she make everything clear.

Brayan Ortiz

# data[].attributes.body
Harcourt did a great job in rephrasing and shortening sentences. This helps keep the article concise and easy to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
Reed does a great job of delivering the original article in a package more suitable for the target audience. She does this by including background information and putting things in more understandable terms. -Hayden Jenkins

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Harcourt did an excellent job of altering the article to appeal to a broader audience. This is done through the choice of vocabulary which caters more to casual readers. This article is also more concise and delivers the purpose of the writing in a more efficient way. -Hayden Jenkins

# data[].attributes.body
I think this article, although compelling in it's own right, veered away from the intention of the original article. Rouche changes many main points of the article to reflect his personal beliefs of the issue. However, he does a good job at changing aspects such as the title and possible confusing language to help target a different audience. - Mason

# data[].attributes.body
Mistry does a good job at making small changes that could help a more broad group of people understand the article. However, I believe certain aspects could be changed, such as the title and certain verbs to make the article more concise. The article mainly lacks revision beyond a few commas and a currency amount. If Mistry had changed more aspects, I believe she could have made this article more compelling.  - Mason

# data[].attributes.body
Reed does a great job at making changes that would help this article be better understood by the target audience. She address the dollar amount, changing certain words that may not be understood, and adding background knowledge that may be required for a better understanding of the situation. - Mason

# data[].attributes.body
I believe Hartcourt did the best at editing the article. He was able to clarify many of the terms that are used that may be unknown to people for who this is intended. Changes he made in the article such as, changing the title and changing the  verbiage allows for a more concise article that is easier to understand. I also believe the way he wrote this would allow for a greater multitude of people to read and understand the intent behind the articles purpose. - Mason

# data[].attributes.body
She is a good source for all parties involved, she deserves praise for making this article more concise for more people. She expressed her interest in this topic and made her terminology clear.

# data[].attributes.body
Hardcourt did the best job in my opinion on revising this article. The best decision he made was re-naming the article so that any reader could understand what the article was about. He also, did an amazing job at changing the article in way to make it easier to read.

# data[].attributes.body
While reading Harcourt's version, it is easy to see how he uses American diction to clarify the words of the article. Although he simplifies the understanding for us, he does not take away from the point the original article was aiming to make. The first example of his being the change of the title from "The Killer Still at Large" to "The Impact on Bottle Feeding on Indian Children." Changing the title captures the attention of American readers more so than the original because it mentions a foreign country as well as the well being of children. These are topics that America, especially the Southern region of America, claims to care about deeply, therefore Harcourt evokes a sense of empathy just from the title.

# data[].attributes.body
Mistry tried to keep the article's international flair and British spellings. She proposed changing the currency and grammar while expressing concerns about potential misconceptions among local readers and concentrating on preserving cultural authenticity.
-Kerryanne

# data[].attributes.body
I acknowledge her concerns about potential misunderstandings among local readers and the level of editing required. Clarity and precision are key to making the article accessible and understandable. She ensures that the article is accurately presented and effectively conveys the information to the readers while maintaining cultural context. She sufficiently demonstrates her knowledge and background in the subject matter.
-Kerryanne

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, it is commendable that he made an effort to Americanize the vocabulary, spelling, and sentence structures. He made it simpler for American readers to understand the material. Additionally, fixing grammar issues would have improved the readers' ability to grasp and be clear.
-Kerryanne

# data[].attributes.body
He executed a better job since he improved it rather than just editing it and made it easier to read for those who are not college-level readers. He maintained the writing largely close to the original essay, unlike Rouche who changed practically everything but made changes to improve the flow.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Harcourt did a great job at revising the article. He changed the title to something neutral and that was more related to the discussion. He also discussed and provided in-depth details of current and previous situations, giving readers a better understanding of the article.

# data[].attributes.body
From reading Lisa Reed's article, I would say that she did a very good job at helping the locals understand her article better. The way she wrote her article allowed the locals to read and follow along easy so that the topic and point was clear. Not only this, but the revisions and notes she made on her article was good in terms of her being able to further improve the article.

# data[].attributes.body
It is always important to consider what might be normal in one place, may not be normal or even good in another place. Such a thing is called Normative Ethical Relativism and it stipulates that there is no universal "normal". So while in America it may be normal and fine to use baby formula, in a country like India it may be dangerous. In India, there are a good amount of people who do not have quick access to water (let alone whether it is clean or not) nor are of good financial standing. This makes it understandable why the original article condones baby formula. Please keep this in mind when editing an article you do not agree with!
-Emmanuel Okafor

# data[].attributes.body
I do like how everything was worded everything was clear and easy to read. I feel like although this was the easiest to read he didn't really revise the article it changed the whole point of the article.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe overall the article did get the message across and I understand that the formula epidemic hits hard in India. But I feel there is a lot of emotional appeal that went un-used. Because this article will most likely be read by more than just people originally from India, I believe that there should be some global examples or data that encompasses a larger area. This way if the information hits home for more ethnic groups, it will likely spread the message faster and more effectively.

# data[].attributes.body
She id a trusted source for both American and Indian audiences. She studied in the USA and in India, so she understands what needed to be revised for both parties to comprehend. She strongly suggests that she is unbiased because she sees both sides clearly.
-Xochitl Ramirez.

# data[].attributes.body
He did a better job because he did not just edit it at all and made it more readable to people who are not at a college reading level. Compared to Rouche, who edited almost everything, he kept the writing pretty true to the original article, but change to make it flow better.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe Harcourt did a great job giving background on the ongoing debate by discussing in-depth more details about the current and previous situations giving great context to those who may not be up to date or familiar with the topic at hand. Harcourt translates the article into a more objective piece rather than something more subject or bias or accusatory. I also believe that giving both positive and negative views when regarding the formula and the limited access to information for poor families plays a major part in the decision making.

# data[].attributes.body
Mistry should look over the article and pay more close attention to the details of (WHO). Because readers will not know who (WHO) are automatically. Providing information about the company's title (World Health Organization) would be better. Also after the first baby milk powder statement, the continuous word throughout the article can begin to change to baby power, or baby formula as long as it is not a repeating statement. Also, the conclusion should be more clear in the aspect of baby formula to the audience.

# data[].attributes.body
In Roache's revision, we can see first off that he changed the title to something that people could easily understand similarly to Harcourt. Apart from that he removed, and edited some of the original article and summarized others. Yet when I read it I feel that he didn't summarize the important information.