is it also worth mentioning that some network graph controls are (currently) unavailable on touch screen devices?

shows? (otherwise not a sentence)

Not quite accurate - we don't have letter-by-letter addressee information, but are relying instead on the summary the processing archivists created. There's still a point to be made here... We're relying on the existence of letters rather than thinking about and digging into the content of the correspondence. So the fact that the letters are sealed isn't a blocker to this approach.

maybe here we emphasize the strength of automation? what we did would be possible through other means - just really tedious

hypothes.is won't let me annotate the text in the help modal window, so I'll make notes here.

turn the labels on or off, making it easier which may make it easier ?

you can hover over wording a bit awkward; user isn't hovering; hover your mouse over? (wonder if there is standard language for this we can borrow?)

degree/betweenness/centrality - can we bold these instead of putting them in quotes?

any reason this is not linked?

Kyle has a github page if we want to link there - https://github.com/kwbock

do we want to revise this at all? (do we think this is still accurate?)

we could say "linked data" or "linked open data" - slightly less technical and jargony than RDF, which is an implementation detail

add a link to findingaids.library.emory.edu ? or do we have one elsewhere?

links to the websites for these standards?

one of these words is extra

this seems like a fine example but we're not actually using the volume or count of letters in our data (because we don't have access to that information)

was this supposed to be larger? otherwise it could probably be removed

not quite accurate - the finding aids describe generally who the the correspondence is to; I'm not sure they have this level of detail on the specific letters for any of the restricted content

If you mean poem dedications/titles like "to Derek Mahon", there really aren't very many of those. Perhaps we can generalize a bit more here?

redundant word?

should any of these technologies (TEI, eXist) be linked?

"held ... as typescripts" seems like odd phrasing. Perhaps: "Many of these typescripts, known as "Group sheets" were/are held ... "?

should we add a comment, now MARBL? e.g. "Special Collections Department (now Manuscript, Archives....)" I see now we have a comment like that later, in the next section...

missing space?

I know these names were already linked above, but should we go ahead and link them again?

we should make sure to address somewhere why we don't have a profile for Michael Allen and why he doesn't show up in our network graphs

should we have a profile for Terry?

wording - relationships around the group also seems a little odd. among the members of the group?

measuring seems weird/inaccurate. diagramming maybe?