Besides these obvious assets, the fundamental shortcoming of the work, in my view, lies in the bibliography. All the other references are scattered in the footnotes of the respective passages. Here, some more editorial revision would have been helpful. A simple alphabetical listing and possibly a smaller, more economical font could have made the bibliography much more handy and rewarding to consult. But there is another more general and more serious problem.
Bibliographical references are necessarily selective and subjective.
Nevertheless I was astonished to find in Neblung's book an unfortunate tendency shared with some recent publications. Her comparative approach, her detailed discussion of the theory of reception could have contributed valuable insights. So Neblung's occasional interpretations, though often subtle and sensitive, hang in the air, lacking a substantial scholarly basis. The answer is yes it is, but one has to pay the price for it. Instead of a prism with colourful nuances, Neblung's study limits itself to a narrow focus and leaves the reader with the uncomfortable feeling that there must be something more.