Agreed. I don’t really disagree with anything in this post, but I’m not sure why it was posted. It seems to largely deal with concepts that have already been discussed, which is fine—but for introductions/summaries to be good, IMO they have to be highly clear and engaging, which I don’t find this to be.
I think that one of the more critical aspects (feedback) has been glossed over to a degree that I think it falls short of its goal of being a good introduction.
I suggest that some editing is in order. I don’t actively discourage another attempt; I suspect most of us have considered writing a “Why this matters and what we mean” post, and while there are other good materials on the site, more good ones probably won’t do much harm.
Agreed. I don’t really disagree with anything in this post, but I’m not sure why it was posted. It seems to largely deal with concepts that have already been discussed, which is fine—but for introductions/summaries to be good, IMO they have to be highly clear and engaging, which I don’t find this to be.
I think that one of the more critical aspects (feedback) has been glossed over to a degree that I think it falls short of its goal of being a good introduction.
I suggest that some editing is in order. I don’t actively discourage another attempt; I suspect most of us have considered writing a “Why this matters and what we mean” post, and while there are other good materials on the site, more good ones probably won’t do much harm.