16 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: The Workhouse Encyclopedia (Hardcover)
I looked forward to reciving this book, but I was left slightly disappointed. I thought it may provide more in-depth information on named workhouses, but it was more a generic encyclopedic view of the workhouse environment. I did find the reference sites and further reading information useful, and the contact details for museums of particular interest.
From an editorial perspective, the book is poorly proof read, with the ends of sentances missing, and labeling for images being incorrect. It all seemed rather rushed.
I would still reccomend this book to researchers who have little or no knowledge, but think that it could have been compiled with a little extra tlc, and become a great work.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 26 Apr 2012, 23:58:00 BST
Last edited by the author on 26 Apr 2012, 23:59:53 BST
Paige Turner says:
I've only come across one faulty image caption (p.123). Some of the articles begin with a dictionary-style definition, e.g. "TOMMY - A tramps' term for food." which may be what you're regarding as "ends of sentences missing".
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2012, 09:21:20 BST
I have had a look at the points raised in Peter's response.
The caption under the cartoons on page 123 is unfininshed, it states "the applicant is now shown trying to". The point I make is trying to what?
Other examples of syntax and proof reading start at page 402 where the captions for the maps shown refer to a different region. Nearly all of these map notes are incorrectly labled.
The book is an excellent piece of work, but for me needed some further time in proof reading.
Other than that, a brilliant research document.
Posted on 7 Aug 2013, 16:37:36 BST
Mrs Satisfied says:
You are complaining about lack of proof-reading.
Suggest you might like to proof-read your above review!!
Posted on 26 Jul 2014, 10:39:27 BST
My review of the book is critical of the editors of the book, not the author who has researched his subject fully. Additionally, my review is not written for profit, therefore it has an automatic artistic licence to be punctually incorrect. If my review was to be sold before being read, then maybe there is a requirement for it to grammatically and punctually correct, but that isn't the case.
I still recommended the book for researchers or other people with interests in the subject, I was just a little disappointed that the editing team and publishers hadn't spent an equal amount of time on the publication as the Author had in putting it together.
Posted on 27 Jul 2014, 19:47:11 BST
Paige Turner says:
The current paperback edition of this book has hopefully remedied the various glitches in the original hardback printing.
In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2014, 17:26:29 BST
I hope so Peter, as it is an excellent piece of work. My criticism is not of the research and the information contained therein, but of the editorial flaws. Sorry if this has created problems, it was not my intention.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›