The article "Descriptions Constructed" was, on the whole, very well-written.
I only found a few minor points that were confusing to me on first read. In
the fifth paragraph, the word "assembling" appears in the fifth sentence.
"I'm taking a nuts-and-bolts approach to the task: if I have three goals for
a description, how do I go about assembling sentences to achieve those
goals?" This word choice was slightly jarring and alienating to me in the
context of writing, although I understood it was continuing the metaphor of
"nuts-and-bolts". I felt that it took the metaphor a little too far, to the
point where it came across as slightly clunky and jarring, at least to me.
<P>
I found one word misspelling in the eighth paragraph, in the second
sentence. The word "contrast" was spelled "contract".
<P>
In the thirty-sixth paragraph, the first paragraph under the sub-heading
"Northern Cold Basin", there was a phrase which tripped me up. I had to
re-read it several times before understanding the meaning. The sentence was:
"All three walls of the basin have niches; from them, water jets from a
pipe."  The phrase "from them, water jets from a pipe" was not clear to me
on the first few readings. Possibly, it could be rewritten "from the niches
extends a pipe, and from the pipe, water jets". I think it would be even
more clear and graceful if it were written something like: "A pipe extends
from the niches, water jetting from it." This would take care of the
sentence style, but leaves the meaning yet vague to me. I have a hard time
visualizing one pipe extending from multiple niches. Does it lie
horizontally, attached to the wall within several niches? Or does it jut
from just one niche?
<P>
 The only other critique I have is that I felt that the beginning of the
article set me up to expect much more radical things to be done with
descriptions, than what was actually done in the examples of descriptions
that were provided in the article. I don't feel, after reading the paper,
that the strong wording in the beginning (i.e., "The word 'description' is a
lie"...) was entirely justified. I think it may have some rhetorical value
in piquing interest, but the risk is that the reader will feel a little let
down. I thought it would have been more accurate to say something like, the
purpose of  desciptions can be regarded too single-mindedly, causing an IF
writer to miss out on the possibilities of wielding its multi-valent
effects. The examples in the article were descriptions, but they weren't
*just* descriptions. They were simultaneously accomplishing several goals
within the work of IF. It's not that it's a lie to call the descriptions in
the article "descriptions"; it's that it's too reductive. It's not that they
are not descriptions; it's that they're more than descriptions.
<P>
The other possibility would be to provide more radical examples of
descriptions, rather than rendering the wording in the introduction less
dramatic.
<P>