When Writing History

You don't want reviewers to say this:

"In an attempt to refocus the reader after a sojourn down one of the fascinating but not always relevant alleys, Lefkowitz makes use of redundancy. So in a discussion about John Walker, we find on page 104 is written: His appointment was mentioned in the general orders for February 19, 1777: "John Walker Esqr. Is appointed an extra Aide-De-Camp, to the Commander in Chief, and is to be considered and respected as such by the Army. Then after two paragraphs of sketchy biographical information about Walker and his father, on page 105 Lefkowitz informs the reader: "Walker's appointment appears in the general orders dated Morristown, February 19 1777: "John Walker Esqr. Is appointed an extra Aide-De-Camp, to the Commander in Chief, and is to be considered and respected as such by the Army. Each quotation has its separate footnote."

Yeah I've combed my manuscript incessently making sure I didn't do this. Rumor has it this author is writing a book about the Arnold Expedition. It's unfortunate editors can't weed out this sort of mishap after acceptance. Since they do a number on me in rejecting my concept in general.