How do you review?

I was just thinking about reviewing, and wondering, how does everyone go about it? Do you review line-by-line, or comment on the overall piece and then point out things you notice? What things do you tend to notice first? Maybe you have a reviewing technique that other people haven't thought of, so let's hear about it!

I quite rarely quote things anymore. Usually if there are some recurring mistakes in the work, I point them out and give them suggestions concerning them, then I say a few overall words about it and then, if there's a bit I really liked, I quote it. I used to quote things with mistakes a lot, but now I'm too lazy to do that, and besides, I never like the "put a comma here" reviews myself, so I don't do them either.

I used to write line-by-lines! But then I realized that grammar is hardly worth picking at if they're going to edit it anyway. I usually pick a maximum of three points to make over the entire piece (four if I just can't seem to hold it in) which leaves other reviewers to pick out some other points about it so not only does the author get a lot of feedback, but more reviewers get a chance for reviews.

But anyway. I make three points! I start off with what I most liked about the piece and then go into what I noticed about the major parts to a story: plot, characters, etc. I conclude by restating the three points, what I liked about it, and a little encouragement before finally submitting. Sounds like I write a paper, doesn't it? xD

EDIT: No one's about to come back and read this. XD But I do sometimes add at the end that they can PM me if they want me to come back and do a line-by-line/grammar check. I'm not about to waste my knowledge by skipping that entirely. XD And it's surprising, really, how often people will want me to do that for them anyway. =)

Prose: I like to do a few nit-picks first and thenI look at the workings of a piece. Like there are set headings in my head that I think about as I'm reading - characters, setting, plot, description - things like that. If there's anything I thought could be improved under one of those headings, I'll make a note as I'm going through and then explain it at the end. Then I'll conclude with some general tips, a few sentences saying what I generally thought was good/ not good and ta da! Review finished

If it's poetry I start with a line by line and then I'm thinking more about structure (rhyme, rhythm, puntuation etc), content, entertainment value and such. I do the same thing though, just tell them anything I don't like/ am unsure about and anything I love. If I was confused by it, I say so and suggest ways they could make it less confusing.

If the grammar is incredibly poor or there are other glaring technical issues, I will mention those first. Then, I will say what I liked about the piece. Then, I'll usually just bring up what I thought could be improve. I'll occasionally do line-by-line if I can't really sum up how I feel well or the issues line more in the progression of the piece then the overall piece itself. Occasionally, I will link to KB articles if needed. Then I conclude, usually giving my overall thoughts in a few words or restating what I liked and giving the author inspiration to revise, the latter especially if I strongly disliked the piece.

I used to do line-by-line, extreme nitpicky reviews. Then I realized I'm not only being annoying but I'm spending far too much time on it. So now I give a general impression of the story, point out any recurring issues I notice, and link to the appropriate Knowledge Base topics whenever I can.

I think line-by-line reviews are more or less worthless and so therefore don't do them, especially on chapters. A writer, especially a less experienced one, doesn't learn anything from having someone go through and change his or her writing or fix her grammar. And, I also believe that the burden of revision is largely on the writer.

So, I prefer to go with generalities. I begin with technical things and, if I have time and think it won't overwhelm the reader, I'll will move onto content and story stuff. And technical comments begin with the most technical: punctuating dialogue, breaking paragraphs. That moves onto grammar and basic style stuff--comma placement (see the sig!) and why adverbs and adjectives should be used sparingly.

Then, into stuff that ties technical and story stuff together. The descriptions, the dialogue, the syntax, etc.

And then onto characters, dialogue, plot in general.

So, I suppose I start at the bottom and work my way up. If a writer's more advanced, then I start higher up the ladder and climb a little higher. In the end, though, I prefer to stick to technical things more than story stuff. It's one thing to tell a writer that her grammar needs serious attention. Quite another to say that her characters have all been done before.

And that's how I review. In big, long, rambling chunks. The more polished and experienced the work, the nitpickier I become. I don't compliment readily, but my my number one priority is to make sure that writer keeps writing. Which is another reason I don't do line-by-lines. A new writer looks at all the red font and wants to go curl up in a ball and cry, not go write the next chapter.

I used to do a bunch of nitpicks but I've found out that it takes a toll on my time and no one really wants a line by line review. Now I pick out things that really bother me or I think the writer should work on. After I finish with that grammar/punctuation/comment part I write an overall. Basically sum up what I thought of the piece and any questions that I had. It's easier but sometimes I ramble...

I quote the whole piece and add grammar mistakes and comments in colored or bolded font. Then I write my overall thought of the piece underneath.

I'm still working on refining my technique here, because I'm stuck in the AP mode of "you better grade this like Grammar Hitler because the teacher is going to and if he notices that you missed something major, he's coming after you". I'm trying to loosen the strings a bit here.

I like having someone go through my stuff with a fine-toothed comb, but I realize that not everyone does, so, erm, I'm working on it.

I usually open with a brief overview of what I liked, then I move on to specific issues that I quote (I avoid grammatical corrections unless the authors asks or if it's something really huge/wrong). After that I move on to more broad topics.

If I see something that I liked, I'll point that out as well. It's nice to know what you've done well =]

I go line by line and point out things I liked, things I found odd and things I had questions about in bold font. Then I put additional comments at the end. I don't really bother with punctuation, although if I see an obvious typo, I will remind you to watch out for them.

I used to use quotes a lot but I try not to do that nearly as much any more. Which reminds me that I haven't reviewed in forever because of all of the time I've been putting into NaNo prep.

But, usually, I go through and read the piece but make note specific lines that I did really notice a problem with. Those are the only ones I ever quote any more. The quoted things aside, I make a note of the bigger things. Was the dialogue awkward? If so, link them to a helpful KB article or just give them a tip or two. Were the characters confusing or hard to distinguish from one another? Link or give help.

When I do poetry, I only rarely ever quote. I just point out the bigger things. The only time I ever use quotes when I review poetry is if there's a specific line that think there's something weird about.

I tend to read first, then go through and go block by block, pointing out issues as I see them. I rarely do grammar issues anymore, unless no one else has, mainly because everyone else does them before me and does a better job than I would. So I stick to general impressions, story and character development and anything in particular I notice.

Quotes are my good buddy. I use them almost constantly, just so I can illustrate my points or make it easy to point out what I mean.

With the intent to scar souls and break backs.
Well, when I'm serious. I don't want to ruin anyone's aspirations. When I do get around to being completely serious on here, I might take an entire day to write a review, just sitting there doing nothing else productive.
I use several styles in one, and then depending on skill and age I adjust as needed.

Whatever is my mood really. For poems I usually only quote when I see a line that should be changed. Otherwise I just give my impressions and what they need to work on. Like everyone else has said I try usually only tell them problems that they made over and over again.

But, for longer stuff I love when a person gives me a nitpicky review because there are certain aspects of grammar I just get mixed up. So, when I know I am right about something I point it out for longer stuff. If someone else has already covered the bases of what needs to be improved I usually just tell the person that I agree and add a few more of my own thoughts. I sometimes expand on there review and give longer explanations of everything. If I am following a novel I sometimes just P.M. a person and ask them what kind of review they want.

A. S.

P.S. I read though all these and I realized something. It is actually really good we all review a little differently. That way everything gets covered. Also, you guys have some pretty cool ways of doing it. I might try a few.