True or false? Have your content reviewers make edits directly to your content as opposed to tracking changes because it makes the editing process quicker and more efficient.

False

Explanation:

Content reviewers should track changes, rather than making edits directly.

This is because, review is the term that describes the action of reviewing the points covered about the content of a certain thing (written, filmed, etc.) in order that the changes are made by the author and with the common agreement between the reviewer and the author . The revision must be made so that possible errors, failures, contradictions and discrepancies are highlighted so that the editing can be done later, with the adoption of the editing suggestions.

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals