The one quibble the reviewer has is with the series' practice of having endnotes rather than footnotes -- not a choice I had any influence over.
The one quibble I have with the review, as well as with one previous review, is that in spite of my careful distinction between the author and the publisher/printer, once again Veldener, the publisher/printer, is mentioned as author of the chronicle, which I show he probably was not. I am not sure how I could have made this any clearer than I did, but apparently this message did not come across the way I intended.