So somebody proofread a paper I wrote and they keep suggesting changes to something I think is obvious. This is for my senior thesis for context.
2 sentences will read something like
>the Bullshit Law of Agammenon was implemented in Nowheresville, MA in 2001. >Under this law, all girls had to show feet to any man who asked.
The peer reviewer keeps saying that I need to be specific about the law I literally just mentioned and must make the sentence
> Under the Bullshit Law of Agammenon, all girls had to show feet to any man who asked.
Do I really need to do this? I could understand havining to restate it if I went a sentence without refering to the law, but this is just the next sentence after the phrase initially appears.
I'm starting to think this person just likes nitpicking shit
2 sentences will read something like
>the Bullshit Law of Agammenon was implemented in Nowheresville, MA in 2001. >Under this law, all girls had to show feet to any man who asked.
The peer reviewer keeps saying that I need to be specific about the law I literally just mentioned and must make the sentence
> Under the Bullshit Law of Agammenon, all girls had to show feet to any man who asked.
Do I really need to do this? I could understand havining to restate it if I went a sentence without refering to the law, but this is just the next sentence after the phrase initially appears.
I'm starting to think this person just likes nitpicking shit
