I recommend publication of this article without substantial changes: it is rare that I see an article manuscript that needs so few revisions.
It is very well written, and clear in its objectives. The only stylistic changes I would recommend are (1) fewer sentences in the passive voice and (2) less obtrusive “sign-posting” of the “in the pages that follow” variety. Since the prose is careful and elegant throughout, it wouldn’t be difficult to make these discursive markers blend in a bit more with the development of the argument. By the same token, the use of the passive voice sometimes persists over the course of an entire paragraph in a way that detracts from the over-all eloquence and clarity of the prose. (These are optional changes from my perspective.)
The article has a strong, clearly-stated central idea: ... The two books of poetry analyzed, though by authors who aren’t associated with each other, are comparable in several respects, since both books involve trips to such developing nations... . As a result, the comparisons never seem forced; in fact, the two poets don’t seem as different from one another as one might expect (based on the social networks to which they belong). I would actually not emphasize as much the fact that these poets are not often associated with one another: that doesn’t necessarily make the argument stronger, but I would leave that up to the discretion of the author as well.
The author of the article has meaningful things to say about both .... , through careful but never over-wrought analyses of their poems. Another strong point is the integration of theoretical concepts and of the previous criticism on the poets. In conclusion, this article is rock-solid and fully deserving of publication in ....
1 comment:
"it is rare that I see an article manuscript that needs so few revisions"
It is rare that I see a published article that doesn't need a lot of revisions. Just saying.
Post a Comment