I desperately need someone to fix my grammar and wording, please!
One is neither physically nor verbally free to express oneself in a typical society. Society tends to impose limits on freedom of expression. Therefore, the society can be identified as the source of norms that come with restrictions and conventionally forms our surrounding in this regard (www.enotes.com, 2010). What we express is sieved through a net of criticism and oppression, cs (comma splice) inherent in the nature of society as a whole awk/ unclear. The social customs and norms enforce us to conform to the standards laid out for various walks of life including interaction and allegiance and disallow deviation to them. This paper is to evaluate "The story of an hour" and assess the conceptualization that the surrounding defines restriction that aligns the extent of freedom as expressed in this story. Need to use simpler language/ need to be more precise in what you are stating/ don’t use wording like seeks to because this undermines your authority as author
I'm going to agree with the red notes. My advice is to cut this paragraph down to about 4 sentences if possible. Also - I'm personally over the whole "one" and "oneself" over just saying "person" and "him." Don't get me wrong, I did it too - and now I just hate it. I've found that in writing, even formal writing, saying exactly what you mean is usually best.
As for the above paragraph, the entire middle section is almost impossible to understand, which makes me question if it is even necessary. Perhaps something is necessary, but not this. Here's a start (you need to answer the questions at the end):
People are neither physically nor verbally free to express themselves in a typical society. Society imposes limits on freedom of expression. These limits include criticism, oppression, and an expectation to meet arbitrary standards conceived through a variety of differing opinions. "The Story of an Hour" [does what? confirms these imposed limits? Breaks free of them? Epitomizes them and therefore fails?...]
The final sentence is clearly your thesis. You cannot say "this paper" when writing a paper. What will you assess about "The Story of an Hour"?? Just say that.
Hope that helps.
The first red note: this is not a comma splice. It was not two sentences spliced together, but was correct, and needed no comma. "Inherent in" is a modifiying phrase. You simply meant that society creates a net of criticism and oppression--a good observation. I would change "is sieved through" to "comes through [or a more vivid verb] the sieve of criticism and oppression..." Then, explain your metaphor in one clear sentence beginning with "In other words..." I like the rest. I agree with the last comment in red, but would say it this way: make a clear statement about "Story of an Hour"-- make it specific. Mrs. Mallard has been restricted by... This will make it clear. (: