I have noticed only two people (Kitty15 and Snoink) who have the Reviewer II badge, and I was wondering if you knew what made their reviews superior and more helpful. Their styles of critiquing are so different from each other, and I want some pointers on how to separate the Reviewer I badge reviews form the Reviewer II ones, because I want to improve my own. As it is, I'm completely confused. Any help?
"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you're all the same."
The Reviewer II nominations topic has a list of all the members with the Reviewer II badge. There are a handful, so browsing those critiques might help. The qualities of a member with the Reviewer II badge are listed there, but I'm sure you've looked at those.
Members are nominated for badges, so, ultimately, the judge of what a superior critique worthy of a Reviewer II badge is is subject to the viewpoint of the people being critiqued, of course. The requirements for that badge say 'Excellent Critiques', which can be defined many different ways.
But, just from what I've observed, the most helpful critiques tend to be detailed (in that the critiquer takes into account the details of the work), specific (pointing out specific areas where a person can improve, maybe giving examples) and appropriate (geared toward the level of writing the person demonstrates ie: not just nitpicking grammar with a writer who, for the most part, writes with good grammar). Those are just the three things that I think of when I think of a helpful critique, and nomination is in the hands of the members, but I hope that helps a little bit.
Remember, excellent critiques come with practice. And if you want any more tips, you can PM anybody whose critiques you respect and I'm sure they will be willing to give you some pointers.
There are more people who have the Reviewer 2 badge than just Kitty and me! For instance, Writersdomain has one too. So we're not the only two! We just have a lot of posts, so it's more noticeable.
The main thing is helpful reviews and a good review to work ratio. That's all, really.
Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est.
"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Master calls the butterfly." ~ Richard Bach
Mild insanity in reviewing number helps. xD You need to do enough good reviews to get noticed, because of the nomination process.
I've noticed Reviewer II critics are self-containing in the reviews a lot of times. As in, they point out what's wrong and why it's wrong, pulling out quotes and explaining in detail what's going on in their head because of the issue. An optional thing what effects that wrong element might have. That optional one I've only noticed in my own reviews when I'm following stories of over two parts.
These reviews can only be on one element, and they can be one paragraph. But what they do is dig in and explain an issue into enough depth that the writer understands why it's an issue and is buzzing with ideas on how to fix it.
Notice I didn't put suggestions for how to fix stuff as something Reviewer II critics put in their reviews. Suggestions can come, but sometimes it's best to let an author take the advice given and come up with a way to fix the issue on their own.
In general: Reviewer II critics leave the author thinking about the basic fundamentals of their work one way or another.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo
Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
Any help?
Gender:
Points: 1639
Reviews: 261