I have been reading draft papers, before they are to be sent out to journals.

Some observations:
1. By the end of the first manuscript page, it should be clear what the paper is about, and the nature of its contribution. Moreover, by the end of the second page, I should know exactly what I need to take away from reading the paper. If I read no more of the paper, I won't be surprised by what you claim or find.
2. I am not enamored of papers whose contribution/literature-survey ratio is 1/2 or less. If the paper is a survey paper, this may well not apply. But, in general, the literature and the relevant argument might well be summarized in two or three paragraphs, with plenty of footnotes. Scholarship assumes that the reader is aware of the literature.
Now if you are taking apart another paper or argument, you might well be much longer on previous contributions, but in this case your contribution is that taking apart.
3. Moreover--Make each of your papers substantial, well worked out, developed. Otherwise, I will discover that you don't do much in any single paper, and there is no reason to read it. A bright idea demands lots of work if it is to become articulated and influential. I ;should not have to ask, Where's the meat?
4. Cute titles are the rage, and I guess they are cute. But I want to know what the paper is about and what the take-away is. I really do.
5. In general, for junior scholars, focusing on one or two main lines of research is most productive and worthwhile. A bunch of dispersed contributions makes your impact much less significant--unless each of your papers is a blockbuster.