Only accepted work is recordedAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep
Contributors/Selen Ikbal Uslu
SU

Selen Ikbal Uslu

Expert
Content Quality Analyst and English Language Specialist
Grammar GuideEmail TemplatesCommunication SkillsBusiness WritingLetter TemplatesWorkplace CommunicationWritingCommunication Workplace ScienceEnglish Language
Contribution score · points from accepted work▲ 464 points in 12 months
NovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct
466Contribution scorefrom accepted workPoints from accepted work
96%Trust score116 of 116 acceptedHow often publishers approve this work
116Accepted contributionsaccepted to dateReviews, corrections, sources and pages
ExpertLevelEarned from accepted work

About Selen Ikbal Uslu

I am a content quality analyst and English language specialist. I have reviewed user-generated content at scale as a quality analyst, and I bring a background in translation, interpreting, and English-language teaching to how I read and edit written English.

My focus is clarity, correctness, and quality of written English: grammar and usage, tone and register, structure, and readability for a general audience. Reviewing content at volume trained me to spot the recurring patterns that quietly weaken writing, passive voice that hides who does what, nominalizations that pad sentences, jargon and filler that cost a reader attention, and to fix them without flattening the writer's voice.

I believe good writing is a form of respect for the reader's time, and that is the standard I edit to.

Selen Ikbal Uslu's contribution history

All116Reviewed1Corrected115
  1. October 2026
  2. Reviewed·20 Oct·EEvolangCommon ESL Grammar Mistakes and FixesChecked each of the eight mistake categories against standard English usage: articles, verb tense, subject-verb agreement, prepositions, word order, countable and uncountable nouns, plural and possessive forms, and modal verbs. Confirmed the corrected examples are accurate and that the explanations match how the errors present in ESL writing. Evidence
  3. July 2026
  4. Corrected·30 Jul·WWhen Notes FlyGiving Feedback EffectivelyWas Article attributed a claim about diminishing returns from frequent feedback to Zenger and Folkman's research, though their actual documented findings…Now Replaced the Zenger and Folkman claim with an accurate description of their actual research emphasis, removed the Cialdini/Schwartz attribution,… Evidence
  5. Corrected·30 Jul·EEvolangBusiness Proposal Writing Guide With TemplatesReviewed the business-proposal writing guide for English clarity and content quality. Evidence
  6. Corrected·30 Jul·EEvolangHow to Write an Executive Summary That Gets ReadReviewed the executive-summary guide from a content-quality and English-editing standpoint. Evidence
  7. Corrected·30 Jul·WWhen Notes FlyWriting Clearly at WorkWas Article mischaracterized Deborah Tannen's real 1994 book (actually about gendered conversational style, not written-vs-spoken prosodic cues) and…Now Both sections were rewritten to keep only the real, verifiable content: Tannen, Minto, Bernoff, and Flesch's real work described accurately without… Evidence
  8. Corrected·29 Jul·WWhen Notes FlyCommunication Clarity ChecklistWas Article relabeled real Economist Intelligence Unit survey categories (swapping which percentage applied to which outcome) and added an unverified '2.Now EIU passage corrected to accurately reflect the real survey's category labels without the unverified cost figure. Evidence
  9. Corrected·29 Jul·WWhen Notes FlyThe Benefits of Asynchronous CommunicationWas Article attributed a specific 'survey of knowledge workers' finding to Cal Newport's real book that the book does not actually contain (it argues…Now Newport passage reframed to accurately describe his case-study-based argument rather than an unverified survey finding. Evidence
  10. Corrected·29 Jul·WWhen Notes FlyWhy Professional Miscommunication Occurs and RecoveryWas Article presented a real statistic with a decontextualized/simplified experimental framing, and attached an unverified statistic to a real study…Now Restored the real experimental context for the Epley/Kruger figures (email vs voice comparison); replaced the unverified Hinds/Mortensen statistic… Evidence
  11. Corrected·29 Jul·WWhen Notes FlyHow Communication Breaks Down ExplainedWas Article cited specific researchers, journals, years, and statistics (e.Now Removed or generalized unverified statistics and misattributed methodological details while preserving the real, verifiable core findings; corrected… Evidence
  12. Corrected·19 Jul·EEvolangClear Writing Rules From Professional EditorsWas "Clear writing is a courtesy.Now As William Zinsser argued throughout On Writing Well, clear writing is a courtesy to the reader: it reflects the hard work of sorting your thinking… Evidence
See all 116 contributions →
How to read this profile

Every number here comes from work a publisher approved

Nobody can buy a score, set their own level or add work to their profile. It fills up only as publishers accept what they submit.

Contribution score
Points for each piece of accepted work. A full review earns more than adding one source. It only goes up when a publisher approves something.
Trust score
The share of their submitted work that publishers accepted. Anything a publisher declined stays private and is never shown here.
Topic authority
A 0–100 score for each subject, based on accepted work in that subject. It decides which requests they are matched to.
Level
Contributor, Trusted, Verified or Expert. Levels are reached through accepted work and trust score together.
The profile shows
Every piece of work a publisher accepted, with the page, date and evidence
Which topics they have proven authority in, based on accepted work
Their contribution score and trust score, both derived from accepted work
It never shows
Work that publishers declined: it stays private to them
Their fees, earnings or contact details
Anything they wrote before joining, unless they claimed and the publisher confirmed it
Publish pages on this topic? Invite them to review, correct or source a page. You see their work before anything goes live.How scores are calculated →