Is This Paragraph Well Written

Is the small paragraph below well written?

1. I am assuming that by "JFK" you are referring to the aircraft carrier. If that is the case it should be "The JFK." Furthermore, since it is the name of a ship, it should be in italics.2. The preposition we use with "reputation" is "for," not "of."3. I would say "everyone he had to deal with" rather than "everyone he dealt with."4. "Did their job" implies that there was a possibility that they might not do their job, but according to the previous sentence "The JFK had a reputation for being inefficient"—not dysfunctional. If people did not do their job, the system would not function at all. What "he" finds fortunate is that the people he had to deal with did their job surprisingly well (rather than "inefficiently" as he had expected). So, here I would say, "Fortunately, the people he had to deal with came through surprisingly well, ..."5. "Should have been" contradicts "still on time" since "should" implies a fixed time at which he was required to be there. "Should" always requires a prior plan or expectation—and perhaps there is something in the earlier context that says he was planning to get there at, say, a quarter to nine. But if there isn't a mention of the exact time based on some plan, then I would say something like: "That was much later than he would have liked, ..."6. "On time" means exactly at the right time. I am assuming that nine o'clock was the "right time," so he was "in time" rather than "on time." He would have been "on time" if he had got there exactly at nine. So, I would say something like: "... he still had a few minutes to spare" (or, "... he had still managed to get there in time."Putting it all together, we would get:The JFK had a reputation for being inefficient, so he wasn't expecting much. Fortunately, everyone he had to deal with came through surprisingly well, and despite the extensive security measures, he moved through the system swiftly. When he got on board it was seven minutes to nine. That was much later than he would have liked, but he still had a few minutes to spare [or, he had still managed to get there in time].

Is this paragraph structured and written well?

The original question is:Is this paragraph structured and written well?Claire took a bite from her chocolate chip cookie and glanced out the coffee shop’s window. There were few customers, maybe because, even for January, it was freezing outside. She looked across the table at her sister, who read the Wall Street Journal.Answer:There is an apparent non-sequitur between the first and second sentences. She (apparently) glanced out the coffee shop's window and noted that there were few customers in the coffee shop. The wording implies a connection between looking out the window and noting that there were few customers in the shop.The part of the sentence "Even for January it was freezing outside" is meaningless. Assuming this takes place in the northern hemisphere, one expects it to be freezing outside. Why say it in that underwhelming way?In the final sentence, the proper tense to use is the past continuous, not the past. It should be, "She looked across the table at her sister, who was reading ...."

In your opinion, is this paragraph well-written?

My rewriting:I'm in freefall; plunging in an abyss of thoughts, my memories. Mutterings; lost hopes and tarnished gold.Deeper; my breath catches in a pale halo, briefly, wrapping my head, and is whipped away by a hot gust.Deeper; into the emptiness. Flickering thoughts and words and pictures. Soon only pictures. Memories; mutterings.Then I remember John; I remember the first time I met him.Kudos where kudos is due: Your paragraph is more colourful and evocative than many I have read. It is emotional and personal.*tautology - Wiktionarytautology (plural tautologies)redundant use of words. It is tautology to say, "Forward Planning".So; I'll add to what others have said with my 2c-worth of improvements.I've been taught that, when writing, repetition should be kept for emphasis, and emphasis should be used sparingly, to preserve its impact. And, once a subject is introduced, it can later be referred to obliquely; gaining you opportunities for other colourful descriptive modes.I've also learned to suggest things, rather than label them. I love writing and I love English. I'll point out the tautologies I've read then I'll rewrite the passage in a slightly different style:.I'm  freefalling down, down, down, (You can only freefall down)into that deep abyss (an abyss is always deep, and you are already falling)that mutters of lost  hope and tarnished gold. My breath catches around me, a white halo  around my head (2 x around; a halo stereotypically surrounds a head)that is whipped away by a hot gust of air. (a gust is already air)As I descend  into the emptiness, thoughts flicker around my head, ('around' again, and more 'descend')('thoughts' in your 'head'. That's where they always are.)but words soon turn  into pictures and pictures into memories and I find myself remembering  the first time I met John.(More 'memories', and 'remembering', 2 x pictures is OK, the repetition works. The second 'and' seems, I dunno, a bit too much.)I've used a lot of repetition, as you did, but to slightly different effect. I think it's still an emotional paragraph, still paced, still a little unsure. I think it keeps the sense of progress and has the revelation I think you aim for.What do you think?

Is the below linked paragraph well written?

The paragraph asked about is:Emily had never felt any maternal instinct, but had never thought of hurting a child. She still wouldn’t do it directly, but felt less inhibited to harm Holly’s mother than ever before. Compared to some men in the world, Michelle wasn’t so evil, but that, somehow made Emily want to harm her even more. Then she would be out of the way.It isn’t ringing my bell the way it’s written. It’s not horrible or anything, but if this crossed my desk to be edited I would change it up. My 1½ cents is:I do like the first sentence all right, but it wanders away from vivid description pretty quickly.Structurally it’s not too bad, though to be fair there appears to be enough of a shift in emphasis here to justify filling in more details into more than one paragraph.There are three buts and two harms, which is a couple too many. In my business qualified statements are the rule of the day, and we find ourselves using “however” and “but” and “although” entirely too much; we have to sometimes but there’s no reason to use more than one in this passage. In fact, try not to repeat words too closely in general unless it’s part of a comparison or a consistent turn of phrase that you’re emphasizing for artistic effect.I think the second sentence is entirely redundant. Leaving most of it out would allow for a bit of tension and mystery to develop when we come to the end. Also, you can imply the “harm”.If I were to rewrite it, (out of context) I’d try something like this:Emily had never before sought to hurt a child despite her lack of maternal instinct, and although she still wouldn’t do so directly, and Holly’s mother Michelle was hardly evil compared to some of the men in the world, somehow that made Emily want her out of the way that much more.

Does this paragraph explain the facts in a well written way?

>After the incident, Jessica's father went into hiding. He never returned to his train-antiques shop, but did send threatening messages to the family once in a while. If he's in hiding, I think it's obvious that he never returned to his train-antiques shop. Everything after the "but" is unclear: to what family? What kind of threatening messages? Why?>Paul's parents grew apart and eventually got divorced. At that point, the entire family went into witness protection. At what point? What entire family? >Paul lived with his father, and Ryan with his mother. Were the parents in witness protection too, and who is Ryan? Where is Jessica in all this?>Ryan's mother remarried a man named Peter Richardson, who had a son from a previous marriage named Donald. Ryan and his mother changed their surname to Richardson.Was Ryan's mother in witness protection too? Was Peter Richardson? Why is Donald mentioned? I am afraid I am very confused. I think it could be cleaned up if you could answer these questions in the text.