Address Dr. Carette's re-review of Introduction Section

[samm82]

Following the changes in #132 and #139, it probably makes more sense for you to review this chapter as a whole. Feel free to take a look as well @smiths, but don't stress about it too much.

The relevant content (as of 1/30/2025) can be found here; an up-to-date version can be found as Chapter 1 of my thesis or Section I of my paper.

[JacquesCarette]

In my ToDo

[JacquesCarette]

Minor comments:

• I would use a 2-column table to present the 13 items on p. 3-4. Keep the numbers, makes it easier for humans to see that it's 13.
• Make it clearer (probably by labelling them RQ1, etc) that questions 1-3 on p.5 are your research questions.

As to your two questions:

1. no list of sources here
2. put in a "See Appendix A" without a link? Do you have an explicit anchor (aka label) in your latex for the title of Appendix A? That's what you can \ref.

Globally: this is a good introduction.

[samm82]

I'll re-assign this to myself as a quick reminder to make these changes later and focus on revamping the Methodology section (#143) which now seems to be our bottleneck. Thanks!

In the spirit of making things "pop", I was thinking of even putting these RQs in their own boxes, like in my seminar, so that I can then show how they map to our methodology (see below). The appendix issue has since been resolved; it was a side effect of @balacij including the appendices as part of the \backmatter (not sure why he did that and am definitely not bitter at him for doing so 😉).