I recently had a paper accepted (YEAH!). The referees had some good corrections and one that puzzled me.
you wrote ``our proof is similar to the one in the wonderful book by Wilf on generationg functions [ref]''. You should not call a book wonderful as that is subjective. You can say it's well known.
I asked a pretension of professors about this. Is it okay to praise an article or book? Is it okay to state an opinon? Would the following be acceptable:
1) In Cook's groundbreaking paper SAT was shown to be NP-complete. It IS grounbreaking, so maybe thats okay.
2) Ramsey's paper, while brilliant, is hard for the modern reader to comprehend. Hence we give an exposition. If I am writing an exposition then I might need to say why the original is not good to read so this is informative.
3) Ryan Williams proved an important lower bound in [ref]. Is this okay to write? For most people yes, but NOT if you are Ryan Williams. (He never wrote such.)
4) William Gasarch proved an unimportant lower bound in [ref]. Is this okay to write ? Only if you ARE William Gasarch (He never wrote such).
The version that will be in a journal will indeed NOT call Wilf's book wonderful. The version on arXiv which will be far more read (not behind a paywall) will call Wilf's book wonderful.