From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Euro Channel mobile network coverage
You removed because it makes no sense to you. I guess you didn't read the sentence very well?!
- No, I assure you my english is quite apt. The original sentence read "On 15 January, 2014, French operators were said that they want to cover the Euro Channel exclusively.", there is a great many grammatical and syntactical mistakes in the last clause of that sentence. The one to which I was mainly referring was:
- "French operators were said that they want to cover..."
- I presume here the sentence is implying french operators were claiming that they would like the exclusive cover of the channel tunnel. A corrected clause reads as follows:
- "French operators said that they wanted to cover..."
- As you can now see the problem here was the use of conflicting tenses "were" and "want".
- However corrections are not limited to the tense.
- The formatting of the date in which the year is separated by a comma implies some form of subordinate clause. Although it is not strictly wrong to place a comma here, it certainly makes for a more clumsy sentence and does not assist the understanding of date. This could even serve to confuse many people as such a date would be considered a compound noun and the separation of such may hinder its correct interpretation.
- Last but certainly not least is the name "Euro Channel", such a wording implies the waters of the channel in Europe which have had joint coverage by both UK and French operators for many years. To me this seems like a confused combination between "Channel Tunnel" and "Euro Tunnel", the correct one being "Channel Tunnel" as taken from the article's title.
- All my corrections combined would make "On 15 January 2014, French operators said that they wanted to cover the Channel Tunnel exclusively." Even this is not perfect but I hope you can see how it is better, and have learnt something about English in the process. In future I would encourage you to revise your edits further before publishing. But please do not reinstate this point in the article no matter how correct, as I do not feel it is an accurate representation of what the attached source was claiming. Furthermore the source did not add any extra information to the article that was not already covered by other references.