Is “unpublished” the right term to use here? It hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed source, but in much usage, published online does count as published.
Even smaller nitpicks concerning formatting and layout:
The footnotes are in a sans-serif font, and larger than the main text, and all the text is ragged-right, and there are lonely section headings (eg “The Golem Genie”), and footnotes split across pages.
The intro is basically a slightly expanded version of the abstract. That is common in academic publications, but not in good ones.
The paper seems to end rather than reach a conclusion. As with all the above, this is a criticism of form, not content.
One very tiny nitpick:
Is “unpublished” the right term to use here? It hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed source, but in much usage, published online does count as published.
Agreed—either way, give the URL.
Even smaller nitpicks concerning formatting and layout:
The footnotes are in a sans-serif font, and larger than the main text, and all the text is ragged-right, and there are lonely section headings (eg “The Golem Genie”), and footnotes split across pages.
The intro is basically a slightly expanded version of the abstract. That is common in academic publications, but not in good ones.
The paper seems to end rather than reach a conclusion. As with all the above, this is a criticism of form, not content.