In this two-part article, Peter Kettle reviews the various styles of book reviewing that are adopted by those contributing on this site and in a number of other forums. The focus is on how different reviewers respond to factual mistakes and also grammatical and typographical errors.

The purpose is to set the stage for those who use this site to express their personal preference for a particular style, so as to inform future reviewers.

In Part I, styles that show a bias to “reader protection” are outlined; followed in Part II by those showing a bias to “author/publisher protection”, which concludes with a formal classification of different styles and an invitation to readers to participate.

In this two-part article, Peter Kettle reviews the various styles of book reviewing that are adopted by those contributing on this site and in a number of other forums. The focus is on how different reviewers respond to factual mistakes and also grammatical and typographical errors.

The purpose is to set the stage for those who use this site to express their personal preference for a particular style, so as to inform future reviewers.

In Part I, styles that show a bias to “reader protection” are outlined; followed in Part II by those showing a bias to “author/publisher protection”, which concludes with a formal classification of different styles and an invitation to readers to participate.

This is a contribution to the quest for “continuous improvement” to England’s approach to batting in men’s Test matches. It is launched by an observation that – accompanying the impressive increase in the run rate under the new regime – there has been a substantial contraction in the number of overs batted per “completed” team innings. Going forward, the discussion focusses on discovering the most effective ways of easing this contraction while maintaining the run rate achieved, so giving a further boost to England team totals.