\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
%would you recommend acceptance?)
-The paper
+The paper would be a good addition to very specific functional programming
+conferences or journal. I would not advise to publish this in a general
+theoretical computer science journal because of the weaknesses described above.
%Comments on quality of writing
+Concerning quality of writing; it requires quite some background knowledge to
+read the paper but the author managed to have a good build-up to the
+technicalities. Moreover, it is embedded well in the literature.
\subsubsection*{Discussion}
%Queries for discussion
-
+\begin{itemize}
+ \item Why is the representation really a saviour for the monolithic IO
+ monad. The regular approach does not have that much overhead.
+ \item Since free monads are not widespread and mostly only known in
+ category theory. Do we really have a useful application? Are the monads
+ who really need such a restructuring unsuitable for it?
+\end{itemize}
\end{document}