At the moment, I do it line by line, but I know that it doesn't really help anyone. Correcting people's grammar hardly helps them out at all really. The reason I do nit-picky grammar reviews is because, if I'm honest, I absolutely fail at explaining grammar and how it works. If the grammar wasn't great, I would feel bad then for not mentioning the writer's grammar in my review. By doing nit=-reviews, I kind of hope that the writer will notice a pattern in my grammatical corrections, and maybe realise what they're doing wrong... I know it hardly ever works like that though!
Anyway, after I do the grammatical stuff, I got to my overall opinion. I tend to have a pattern to this. I begin with what I liked and what I thought the writer did well in the piece. I then go on to mention a critique I have. The amount of critique's I have obviously depend on the piece itself. Then, depending how lazy I am at the time, I give a kind of like brief overall conclusion. I put what they need to improve on within a few sentences, mention what I thought was good again, and say any other brief comments.
I'm really going to try and stop the nit-picking because I know that the quantity of people don't like it. Maybe I'm just self-conscious and don't trust myself with just doing an overall thing...
Or maybe I just like the look of quotes... I'm a weird kid...What I do like about the way I review though is that I don't ever tell writer that their work is bad. That is the most important thing in my mind. You don't simply tell the writer what's bad about their work, but compliment them on what they're doing well. To me, the positives are as important as the negatives in a review. If you don't compliment the reader, they're not really going to take note of your critiques because... well, they don't feel loved.
I'll shut up now...
