Instruct: Classify Amazon reviews into positive or negative sentiment
Query: Could have used an editor

While the topic is fascinating, and his use of primary sources (especially the Boston media) is laudable, the writing itself is occasionally brutal. It reads like a first draft. He repeats stories multiple times, and makes assertions that he does not back up. I agree with his thesis and his conclusions for the most part, but he dismisses evidence that doesn't fit his view, and he doesn't really try very hard to determine motives. I was hoping for a "smoking gun" in the long debate about who (probably plural) amongst Cronin, Yawkey and Higgins is responsible for this black mark in Red Sox history. Its mainly just he-said, she-said. If you are interested in the topic, as I am, I recommend the book. There are a lot of interesting stories and first-hand accounts. But you might have to cringe a few times while you are reading.