Donald Semora of Wizard Tower Games has clarified their involvement...
View attachment 152600
So I have to ask the question... Say you're a layout person, and someone asks you to layout their document for publication. The document they hand you is an editorial train smash that makes you question life itself. Do you push back, strongly suggesting "hey, maybe you should get someone who isn't insane proofread this", or do you just say "f$%# it" and do the layout anyway without any regards of what it actually is you're laying out?
I just spent a little time looking at WTG's example page from their upcoming "The Haunted Ruins". The layout and artwork are well done. The writing is... well it isn't good. It's far better than Abaddon, but that's a low bar.
The biggest issue is the target audience. The sections meant for the GM have phrases like "Appears to be" and "NPC appears to be this". The GM needs definitive statements like "The walls ARE this." and "The NPC IS a heavy-set man".
There are many run-on sentences, and sentences with commas in the wrong place. And I'm not sure why they spend space on giving GM advice. It feels like every OSR publisher thinks they have to tell you how to run a game.
And then you have a sentence like this: "Briar is a hub for merchant loads coming from Moordeep and Drakmar which are port towns, and Dark Home the largest city in Amaria." Okay, first off, loads?! Was the word you were looking for "caravans" or just cross out loads entirely as it's redundant? Also, shoehorning in three cities that don't even come up in the adventure is a little odd. My guess is they plan to sell a campaign setting down the road. Nothing wrong with that, just a jarring place to do an info drop.
I'm probably being over-critical. I just think the key to a good module is good writing and communication. WTG definitely nailed the art and layout, and it would be nice to see the writing brought up to a similar level. Since it comes out on the 10th, I imagine it's too late.