Let’s face it. Reviewer #2 is a always jerk.
There is no list of peer-reviewers who might serve as the second reviewer, there is only one “Reviewer #2” and he is called on to read every article you write.
Reviewer #1 is basically Julie Andrews dancing on a mountainside somewhere, singing praises about your article. She has already posted it on her refrigerator, next to her daughter’s kindergarten art work. She tells everyone she knows about how smart you are.
Reviewer# 2, however, lives at the bottom of a very dark cave. Somehow, he has an internet connection there. He hates you and everything you stand for.
He doesn’t necessarily want you to fail, he only wants you to suffer. He generally writes something like: “Oh I guess we can accept this article, but only if the author changes EVERYTHING!”
He wants you to provide a footnote for your thesis. He wants you to expand the historiography but shorten the introduction at the same time. He wants you to provide more information but also get to the point. He wants more subheadings but fewer sections. He wants part 3 to come before part 2, part 2 to come before part 5, and part 5 to come before part 3. He literally wants the impossible.
Find out who he is, and cite him.