Proof-reading

You should have proof-read your review! People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

Loose vs lose (loose [lOOs] adj not fastened or pre-packed; not tied up or confined; able to move freely; not tight, not firmly fixed; not close-fitting; careless, inaccurate, vague; dissolute, immoral; not closely woven; flabby;)

reign vs rein (reign is what a monarch does)

pro's vs pros (The marking of possessive case - belonging to pro)

I did proof read the article, you should have seen it before it was fixed :)

I believe my criticism was, and is still valid with the book and was not 'stone throwing'. I probably would not even have noticed a few mistakes, I am no editor, however we are talking about more than a few, actually there where enough that I felt it warranted a comment.

I don't even see your review of my review as 'stone throwing', so the glass house that I live in should be secure. If that is your only criticism, then the majority of the review was a success.

Dave

You are right, there were some mistakes in the review too. The mistakes were fixed. Thanks for reporting.

What I think Dave meant is that in some cases the mistakes in the book made it harder to understand the correct meaning of the sentences.

I don't know but I suspect the problem with the book not being fully proof read may be because the author did not have time or somebody else to help and proof read the book for him.

I understand that Leanpub is often used by self-published authors and so they do not have an editor behind them to help on this like there is from other publishers.

Anyway, I already asked Dave and he is willing to help the author to proof read the book if he is interested. I am contacting the author to let him know.

All is well when the community is willing to cooperate and help each other to publish great works.