I am a freshman medical student at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock. If there is one thing that I can do for my colleauges is to wave a red flag and tell you NOT to buy this book. Firstly, the organization is extremely poor. Secondly, some information is inaccurate and/or outdated. Finally, the material is obviously condensed from a superior text on Histology by Gartner & Hyatt. Although, G&H is more expensive, it is well worth your money. The two color illustrations are also "modified from" other texts.

This guy talks like a PhD. He puts words and sentences together very well that mean little or nothing. He makes up ideas and concepts that sound impressive on the surface but have very little or no substance, based on very simple concepts in reality. Gets the word count up good. If he's not a PhD he should be. This guy is dumb. Except he makes a lot more money than me.

This book is so full of factual and technique errors that the National Speleological Society asked the publisher to withdraw it. They did so

Being a geology maven, I am loathe to pan a book on my favorite subject, but it must be done here. This book is very amateurish, displays no sign of proofreading, and is horrendously inaccurate on any of a number of fronts. The writer has utterly no idea of how to prepare a geographically accurate map of large-scale features, frequently misspells ordinary place names, makes great misstatements of fact, particularly in the area of lists of features, such as the names and diameters of meteoritic impact structures, and glosses over or ignores numerous fundamental geologic rules and precepts.

Up to now, I have had a tremendous regard for Facts on File as a publisher of books about the natural world, but the Erickson series is one that has slipped through the cracks of their quality control system, and this is one of the worst. Don't buy this book, or take it out from your library, unless you want to be greatly misinformed and an ignoramus about geology and geological features.

The corniest book I have ever read

The originals have been squeezed from a 210-page format to half that number of pages by spreading a small typeface across pages with no margins. Although the publisher claims that typographical errors in the original have been corrected, the copy is riddled with ludicrous typos (degree symbols for the letter "o", "&" for the letter "d", "Neil" for "Ned", etc. with an average of 1-1/2 typos per page. Clearly these were scanned by machine and run through a spell checker, untouched by human eye. The illustrations in the originals are omitted. It seemed a service to reprint the original Tom Swift series in an affordable format, but these are cheap, ugly and so carelessly made that they aren't worth the trouble.