Not a big fan of how this article is formatted, it's very repetitive at times.

I am intrigued by the book that is linked here.

This is often difficult for me because even the figures members of my own research group are near impossible to understand without significant explanation.

I like this approach of jumping to the conclusion, because that's the next best summary of the work after the abstract and introduction.

This makes me wonder, when people write these kinds of articles, who's their target audience? First choice would be regular readers of the journal, who would more easily understand this stuff, but I wonder what fraction of people that read those articles actually are regular readers like that.

This step is too difficult for me. I just skip straight to step 2.

Sometimes this can happen simply because the authors want to cram as much information into a small space as they can--this happened with one of the articles my research group tried to submit to Nature but got rejected from last week.

One of my favorite writers is actually the Prophet Joseph Smith. Although he was known to be a very poor speller, and his writing style wasn't as flowery as many of his contemporaries, his writings were often incredibly thought-provoking and descriptive while still often managing to be quite succinct.

It's unfortunate that quite often, imposed deadlines can make full rewrites unfeasible, at least for me. I often end up turning in work that I know isn't my best simply because I ran out of time.

Although it's a good thought, I think this is much easier said than done because we don't often learn too much about the daily lives of these important spiritual figures. Most often the stories we read or hear about involve extreme situations or miraculous events, not about how these people conduct themselves in the more everyday situations that we encounter far more often,

Maybe it's just because we're physics majors and we're used to research, but this feels obvious enough to me that I think it should go without saying.

Do people actually do this often? I always have to have some semblance of structure for what I'm going to write before I actually write it.

I've heard this advice many times, and it's usually phrased in such a way to suggest that doing it this way is easier, because then we don't need to worry about revising, instead just focusing on getting our thoughts down on paper. This has never worked for me though, maybe because of how much of a perfectionist I am. I find that revising as I go helps me get a better sense of the flow of my work, and helps me know how to say what I need to write next.