Michael's lit review

I've had a quick look at the literature review from Michael's dissertation. The subject matter is entirely different to my own, however I'm interested in style, structure and length. 

In terms of structure, Michael starts with a short introductory paragraph explaining that the review is necessarily broken down into three sub sections. There isn't however a concluding paragraph to tie the different threads together. At the current stage (bearing in mind how little reading I've done) I'm not sure whether my own review would need to have distinct sections of whether the might merge together. I feel OK about this.

In terms of style, Michael's approach isn't unlike the abstract and context for my own research proposal (which is itself similar to my approach to essays). Perhaps the key stylistic ingredient is weaving different bits of literature together, showing their relevance to the topic whilst reflecting on the relative strength. Again, I feel OK about this.

In terms of duration, this is where I'm more anxious. Including the introductory paragraph, Michael's literature review comes in at 2755 words. That seems like a lot of content to produce by mid-January. On the other hand, Michael's review is the finished product whereas mine will be draft. Also, it's reasonable to assume that the inclusion of direct and indirect quotations will account for a few hundred words.

It will be useful to see how this compares with other literature reviews.