Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 79.66.116.91 - "→chapter 25 Bernoulli's Errors. (Penguin 2012 pg275): new section" |
→criticism - style of writing: new section |
||
Line 52:
I do not compute the same final numbers. Are they gifts or investments with cost to initial wealth, or typos !? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.66.116.91|79.66.116.91]] ([[User talk:79.66.116.91#top|talk]]) 02:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== criticism - style of writing ==
i belive the article about the book cant be complete without a criticism section. a criticism focusing not only on the theories/findings presented in the book, but also on how the book is written. if i may say so, theres just too many crappy books out there being heavily advertised by saying that it is a bestseller, therefore it must be a good read, or eg. falsely creating the notion, that the author is associated with the world famous nobel laurate prize.
i dont feel entitled to start such a section myself by reading the first 67 pages of the book, but i already have an uneasy feeling about it: it seems to me, that however exciting the idea described in it, the writing itself is somehow clumsy, doesnt lend itself to be easily red/followed/understood. i should come back to this after i finished reading, but i might say already that a brilliant scientist doesnt always make for a good author - speaking about popular science literature, which it is.
so i suggest to add a section to the article abut how well written is the book (in consideration of its critics).
[[Special:Contributions/176.63.176.112|176.63.176.112]] ([[User talk:176.63.176.112|talk]]) 19:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC).
| |||