Typical of the critical view, McConville writes his introduction to the prophetic books in the Masoretic tradition. Though his learning is to be appreciated on these subjects, he tends to too readily accept critical conclusions over conservative assertions.
An example of this is in a discussion over the possibilities as to how two prophets could have written material so similar. The conservative answer, which accepts supernaturalism, claims that the same God who inspired the one also similarly inspired the other. McConville simply dismisses this as most unlikely and spends time discussing other possibilities such as the earlier prophet's influence on the later or that both drew on a common non-extant source. While these are certainly also possibilities, McConville's failure to even regard the conservative explanation as worthy of even cursory investigation shows a lack of academic integrity. In all fairness, it should also be expected of conservative scholars to also responsibly discuss the questions and alternate solutions that critical scholars raise.
Each prophet has several sections in its chapter, including a section on date and authorship, on rhetorical intention, on theological message and other sections. While those sections are helpful to the authors purpose as stated in the introductory chapter, the section titled, "structure and outline," distracts from that purpose. These sections, which are like a very brief commentary, take away from the flow of the other sections which deal more with the books as wholes rather than a piecemeal as does the structure and outline sections. With that section, each chapter tends to lose its concision.