The part I really liked was when he explained how one really weird digression in the paper--a page and a half of Defining Terms and talking about different types of performance, which was tangentially related to the paper at best--was probably a sign that the article's author had reached her eventual conclusions/thesis by reading that. It was a valid route for her to take to get to her ultimate point, in research; the mistake was in trying to stuff her entire research path into the paper, because it was ultimately almost irrelevant to the focus of the article itself. And he said that a lot of grad students do the same when writing; they got to a certain point by a given route, so by god, they're going to try to show the entire process in their paper.