Mike N.

"Great work. Would use again!"

"Mike is amazing. Great communication and exceeded my expectations for the project."

"Knowledgable. Timely. Professional. Perfect. Mike Noland!"

"Mike was an absolute pleasure to work with. With my schedule being a mess, Mike was extremely patient with me and the output required. Thank you, Mike."

"Mike is a pleasure to work with and did an amazing job under very short notice. The play that he wrote is exceptionally funny. He made the changes that I requested quickly and followed my directions well."

"Great communication and very amenable to making any changes that I requested, but no changes were necessary. Fast turnaround time and great work overall."

"Excellent communication and service from this highly professional colleague."

"I found that Mike's alleged experience did not translate into the quality of writing I expected. The finished work, though I'm accepting it at this time and paying the agreed-upon rate, required substantially more editing and proofreading than the work of other writers I have worked with. Two of my professional review staff and I agreed that Mike's writing was awkward, and that he relies extremely heavily on telling rather than showing in his fiction. He also has a habit of overusing the word "then" to begin sentences, which makes the writing appear monotonous. He also frequently describes things as a noun or adjective followed by the words 'but different' or something similar, in what my review staff described as "lazy, uninspired, bad writing." Aside from the above, quite a bit of the dialogue needed to be reformatted, and grammatical mistakes were found often enough that on this basis alone, I would not rehire Mike. The amount of time I spent editing the work to correct these basic issues was more than I would have liked. I don't feel that professional writers advertising ghostwriting services ought to be in need of an editor themselves. On a positive note, Mike incorporated all of the plot elements, names and locales as requested and followed instructions well. I was quite satisfied with his communicative nature and his attention to those details. The ending of the story, however, seemed extremely abrupt, and with an additional 200-300 words left before hitting the 4,500 word cut-off point, I would have liked to see Mike wrap the story up in a less-contrived manner. I found that I needed to revise the ending to add another 100 words or so to expand the ending into an appropriate finale, in which the full scope of events is revealed, as opposed to "everyone died, the end." All in all, I consider the project a moderate success, but would be unlikely to hire Mike specifically again, as I expect paid ghostwriting work to be more polished than what was provided here, with far less editing required to get it production-ready."