Title: more missed science
Product review: so, im only 15 pages into this book, but i have already caught some really lazy editing. on multiple occasions, Turkana Boy has been incorrectly referenced. one noteworthy example is the "1971" discovery date; this fossil was discovered in 1984.perhaps it was just to make the age of the (assumed) protagonist work with the story.still, incorrect science is a deal breaker for me. pass.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
