diff --git a/review_1/review_1.tex b/review_1/review_1.tex
index a3b1848..b907162 100644
--- a/review_1/review_1.tex
+++ b/review_1/review_1.tex
@@ -26,17 +26,16 @@ is summarized in the conclusion.
 
 The language used throughout the paper is in general suitable for scientific
 writing with respect to the used vocabulary. There are some grammatical and
-spelling errors that should be resolvable by either using spellcheck software or
-by rereading the paper (for the grammatical errors). Abbreviations such as
-\emph{don't} or \emph{we're} should not be used in scientific writing. At the
-end of section 4.3.1 a sentence is started with \enquote{Another} but never
-finished.
+spelling errors that should be resolvable by using spellcheck software.
+Abbreviations such as \emph{don't} or \emph{we're} should generally be avoided
+when writing scientific papers. At the end of section 4.3.1 a sentence is
+started with \enquote{Another} but never finished.
 
 The abstract is very short and does not describe the relevance of your topic or
 the content of your paper. I would start with a sentence like
 \enquote{Quantified Boolean Formulae allow encoding complex problems such as
 planning, two-player games and verification in a compact and natural way...}.
-Hinting at the speed or general performance of QFB solvers is also an option.
+Hinting at the speed or general performance of QBF solvers is also an option.
 
 The introduction touches upon the relevant information needed to put solving
 QBFs into relation with other problems, e.g., the SAT problem. The motivation
@@ -57,31 +56,52 @@ I would also suggest rewriting the sentence at the bottom of page 3 to page 4
 because it is worded in such a way that it is difficult to understand without
 rereading the sentence multiple times.
 
-For section number 4 going into more detail about each of the different problems
-would give the reader a more complete picture. It is not clear for example why
-section 4.1 is named \emph{Compression}. The text following the headline defines
-the reachability problem which the reader cannot put into relation with the term
-\emph{Compression}. The same problem applies to section 4.4 where the relation
-of the headline to the text is only vaguely perceptible. The first paragraph for
-\emph{Model Checking}, however, gives a short and concise description of the
-problem and what the goal is. Likewise, section 4.3.1 contains a clear
-description of the problem, how it is modeled using QBFs and what the solution
-looks like. Applying a similar approach to the other sections would make it
-easier for readers to know what to expect from each section and help them find
-the information they need.
+For section number 4, going into more detail about each of the different
+problems would give the reader a more complete picture. It is not clear for
+example why section 4.1 is named \emph{Compression}. The text following the
+headline defines the reachability problem which the reader cannot put into
+relation with the term \emph{Compression}. The first paragraph for \emph{Model
+Checking}, however, gives a short and concise description of the problem and
+what the goal is. Likewise, section 4.3.1 contains a clear description of the
+problem, how it is modeled using QBFs and what the solution looks like. Applying
+a similar approach to the other sections would make it easier for readers to
+know what to expect from each section and help them find the information they
+need.
 
 The conclusion is missing an outlook on further research directions in the field
-of QFBs which would wrap up the paper in a straightforward fashion.
+of QBFs which would wrap up the paper in a straightforward fashion.
 
 In summary, the structure of the paper is good although the individual sections
-could contain more explanations of the problems and their solutions. See
-section~\ref{sec:Major issues} and \ref{sec:Minor issues} for a listing of the
-identified problems.
+could contain more explanations of the problems and their solutions. The length
+of the paper is within the 7-10 pages if the table of contents is left out and
+the space on the title page is removed. See section~\ref{sec:Major issues} and
+\ref{sec:Minor issues} for a listing of the identified problems.
 
 \section{Major issues}
 \label{sec:Major issues}
 
+\begin{itemize}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
+    \item Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion are too short (see
+        section~\ref{sec:Evaluation} for suggestions)
+    \item Although the general structure is intuitive, the individual points and
+        sections are missing a red line that takes the reader from one point to
+        the next
+    \item It is very hard to grasp the concepts without reading additional
+        material
+\end{itemize}
+
 \section{Minor issues}
 \label{sec:Minor issues}
 
+\begin{itemize}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
+    \item The table of contents should be left out for short papers
+    \item The title page is on a separate page
+    \item Some figures and equations are not referenced correctly (sometimes the
+        word equation or figure is missing before the reference)
+    \item Some spelling and grammatical errors
+    \item Some references are missing information (e.g., [2] should mention the
+        workshop at IJCAI 2016; [5] was published in the lecture notes on
+        computer science and submitted to the SAT 2011 conference)
+\end{itemize}
+
 \end{document}