A recent thread:
1. So, how much annotation should be done? And should commentary be
thrown in? Although I have thoughts I'm refraining from sending
it in unless I see some interest in this thread. [Rick P]
2. Send it in -- it's always unpredictable in advance what will
trigger a response and what won't. [Carrol]
3. Seconded. Even if Eliot's poetry sometimes suffers from
overanalysis, too much information is better than too little. [George]
4. Better for what? But isn't it instead a question of good analysis
and bad analysis, or astute analysis and sloppy analysis, or call
it some such? [Ken]
Ken is getting to what I had in mind. In response to Rick P's question
> Or rather, was Ricks' editorial material and/or style appropriate for
> this book?
I asked "what sort of elements would you (or others) think need to be
considered in order to answer your question?"
Rather than choosing between too much or not enough, doesn't an edition
(which your website is, Rick) have to be published with principles in
mind? Most editors announce theirs in prefatory matter, although the
principles might be badly chosen or not be followed. In what contexts
is more better? or appropriate? Who are the readers the editor--Rick
or George or Ricks--has in mind?
The March Hare has a particular layout, but it might have had others.
So, too, your website. Is that what you meant by style, Rick?
There is much to be considered in order to answer the question. Editing
is more than proofreading or compiling.