Executive summary: The review gives asterisk #2 a rating of 5β10, finding the content above average but issues with lack of coherent theming across articles.
Key points:
The content quality was good, but the theming and flow between articles felt disjointed.
Standout articles included ones on plant-based meat, alcohol research, global health, and forecasting. Weaker ones lacked depth or relevance to theme.
The serious academic tone lacked the fun, weird articles from the first issue. More visuals are needed.
The community has invested significant funding into asterisk, so reviews are important for gauging if it is worth continuing.
Overall a work in progress with potential, but needs more coherent themes tying articles together in a unique way.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The review gives asterisk #2 a rating of 5β10, finding the content above average but issues with lack of coherent theming across articles.
Key points:
The content quality was good, but the theming and flow between articles felt disjointed.
Standout articles included ones on plant-based meat, alcohol research, global health, and forecasting. Weaker ones lacked depth or relevance to theme.
The serious academic tone lacked the fun, weird articles from the first issue. More visuals are needed.
The community has invested significant funding into asterisk, so reviews are important for gauging if it is worth continuing.
Overall a work in progress with potential, but needs more coherent themes tying articles together in a unique way.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.