Technically, this is a very good book - clearly each author is well qualified in the SharePoint area. However, one gets the feeling that the chapters were assembled from the various authors, once all had been written, without a decent level of editing efforts for consistent style, grammar, etc. Since I'm not an author, maybe this is the way it's "supposed to be". But as a reader, it makes the book less enjoyable that it could have been.
For example, if you work your way through the book, you'll deal with "sites" and "site collections" in Chapters 1-7 (the terms are defined for you in Chapter 1). However, upon arriving at Chapter 8, you are abruptly confronted with "webs" instead of "sites", without a prior explanation that they are one-in-the-same. A careful reader, or one with prior SharePoint experience, will realize they are 2 different terms for the same thing, but a new user may need to carefully analyze the text through the first several pages of Chapter 8 to figure this out. This is one example of the lack of consistency across the chapters.
(I certainly hate to beat up on the author of Chapter 8, but it's the first big change in the book, so it bears using as an example. Maybe that same author wrote one of the earlier chapters in the book too - I don't know who wrote what).
Chapter 8 is also where there is a dramatic change of writing styles. Now, everyone has a different writing style, so I don't blame the author - but shouldn't the editor be watching out for things like this and insist on a rewrite? It is MUCH more conversational and marks a turn in the book from "present the technical facts" to "entertain the reader" - an unnecessary turn that detracts from the excellent technical aspects. For example, from Chapter 8 on page 274:
"I say most, because sometimes the decision to create a site as a web is not really a black-and-white decision. In fact it is often gray and cloudy! In many cases, you could go either way and, in many cases, whichever way you choose could potentially have an impact in one way or another." Huh??? The editor must have been asleep on that day. Can't blame the author - they are the technical expert and not necessarily a gifted wordsmith - but the editor should have known better.
In the end, the technical aspects of the book are there. Sorry, but I've just got to take away one star for the consistency. If the book was presented as a series of articles, then that would be different, but it's not. It is presented as a progression of technical instruction and should read seamlessly to a far greater degree than it does.