Suggestions for Law Review Editing

I picked up this reference on the Law Librarian Blog:

Concurring Opinions blogger Dan Solove wrote a few days ago about his pet peeves concerning how law review submissions are edited. His grievances are about American journals. But are Canadian journals free from some of these practices?

In his post entitled Law Review Editing: Some Suggestions for Reform, Solove stated:

"My sense is that many law review editors have no idea just how widely professors view some of their editing practices as silly and bothersome. Perhaps by airing them out here will lead to meaningful reform. Here are two of the silliest rules and practices of law review editing:

1. Parentheticals
One of the most obnoxious rules is the requirement that nearly all cites need to have a parenthetical containting descriptive text.

(...)

2. Footnotes for Every Proposition
Another irksome practice is when law review editors want footnotes for nearly every proposition in the article. For example:

The earth revolves around the sun.

A footnote must be added:
The earth revolves around the sun. [Footnote 1]
Footnote 1. See Nicolaus Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543)"