The language and the accuracy of the information are different.
The language in the preface is more formal than the language in the interview. For example, "...that kind of makes sense.." in the interview is informal. What does "that" refer to? It is not specified. Then, " kind of.." is a colloquial expression. Then, " ..the international Astronomical...., they took a vote.." is too informal. Besides, the text does not explain why the IAU had to organise a vote. This is explained in the preface: "..when..... (IAU) prompted by......, brought Pluto's planethood to a vote..". This is another example of informal language and unclear information in the interview: "...and basically they said Pluto had to be reclassified.."; Who are <em>they</em>? the voters or the IAU?. Besides, the classification is not clear. This is clarified in the preface,' "..Plato was downgraded......... "dwarf planet",..'. Besides, the preface uses formal language many times: " prompted by pressure.."; "..brought Pluto's planethood to a vote.."; "..downgraded.."; "..thereby.." and " ..diffuse.."
