Comprehensive Reviewing Guide (In the Works)

Comprehensive Reviewing Guide (In the Works)

Piano_WL 03 Oct 2021 15:11

Good [CIRCADIAN GENERAL DESCRIPTOR] to you, Wanderers. I've been inspired to start work on a "Comprehensive Reviewing Guide." This is the thread to talk about anything that comes to mind about the review process (the general review process, not just the one we use here with the sandbox and the forum and stuff). Had your work reviewed by me and found it useful, or not useful, or so/so? I want to hear all about it. Something you wish anyone would try to do while reviewing your work, or love when someone does? Put it here. Things that you've had other people tell you they like about your review for them? Absolutely, give give give.

My goal is to create a general and pliable framework (almost template, but not that specific) for people who would like to get into serious reviewing to use and think about as they go.

That's all folks! Until this post says otherwise, the thread is open for ideas, comments, discussion, all that. The guide itself will get done, ah… when it gets done. Happy writing!
-Piano

Re: Comprehensive Reviewing Guide (In the Works)

destinysday 04 Oct 2021 00:50

Just s few thoughts my sleep-deprived brain can think of as it comes to crit/ review

1. 1. Finding a few dedicated poetry reviewers to help out.

Poetry is one of those things that's always subjective and hard to review properly. But ive kinda noticed that when people bring some in, they usually get some general feedback followed by something along the lines of "But I'm not a poetry person so idk". I know finding someone a bit more versed in poetry authors can go to for more experienced feedback would be difficult, but its food for thought

1. 2. Specifying what kind of feedback you're looking for

I'm certainly guilty of this, but there are a lot of times people just bring up a piece for review and say "Any thoughts?" And while there are times that getting that general feedback is all an author really needs, I think having people be a bit more specific would help both parties. Like, encouraging them to bring up a piece and say "Hey I was wondering if this part of the plot made sense" or "Should I be adding more detail here?" etc. Having the author and reviewer focus on specific aspects instead of the whole story each time would probably help the reviewer give better feedback and for the author to feel like they're making some significant improvements until they're finally ready to post.

1. 3. Actionable crit.

Kinda goes without saying. But I feel like each crit should have one piece of feedback an author can use to improve the piece, even if its just SPaG related. Even a slight bit of feedback is better than a reviewer snooping through your sandbox to say the idea needs work.

cant really think of anything else at the moment, but i may edit this to add more

Re: Comprehensive Reviewing Guide (In the Works)

Zikzargil 04 Oct 2021 04:36

Currently, as far as I have seen, Crit generally focuses upon the grammar/language of the piece and not the overall
impact/effectiveness of the piece. If the reviewer were to focus upon the general impact/ inner meaning of the piece¹, it would be a huge help to the writer. The writer would be able to improve upon the language/narrative flow to ensure that the core idea continues to churn beneath. This is especially useful for philosophical/logical/'mystery' narratives.
Apart from this, the focus of the review must upon specific parts of the core. The general picture need not always reflect its component pieces and a subtle weakening of any one of its constituents could alter the flow of the narrative. The reviewer must also be informed of the core idea after the preliminary analysis is complete². The reviewer must then focus upon the core idea and flag the parts of the narrative that led to the conflict, if any.

Footnotes

1. if the reviewer's interpretation deviates from the writers' aim, the writer in question could reiterate certain bits of his narrative as highlighted by the reviewer in order to convey his message in a better manner

2. Where the reviewer tries to figure out what the core idea is and his general first impression/deductions

Re: Comprehensive Reviewing Guide (In the Works)

UncertaintyCrossing 14 Oct 2021 18:51

I'm mostly going to echo what was said in the comments above mine. Find reviewers who can handle more niche topics (someone can specialize in poetry, another surrealism, another art, ect), encourage all feedback to be constructive and actionable, and encourage writers asking for crit to specify more of what kind of assistance they need.

If you're going to make a guide to help reviewers, I might also encourage an optional template for folks seeking crit too, something that's like

1. Genre of story/type of writing
2. Short summary/overview
3. What kind of feedback am I looking for
4. Link to sandbox

Feel like it'd make it easier on both ends if the reviewer knows what to look for in terms of what would specifically help a particular author.

I like the crit you give Piano, and have found it to be helpful. A lot of the crit I've gotten at WL as a whole has been pretty great. I do my best to give both SPaG feedback, content feedback, and actionable items when I give crit, and I think/hope people have found that helpful? But I would very much appreciate a guide to make sure I'm not missing anything/make critiquing a lot more efficient!

---

But the time flies, irretrievable.