A reviewer's expertise in reviewing tends to differ- some catch straightforward grammar issues, some advice on plot points and the flow of sentences, and some do both. While there are many ways we review a story, those are the main two categories- the spelling and grammar and the story itself.

Whether you're interested in broadening your ability, finishing out your specialty, or simply interested in the way reviews work, this is the lecture to look at.

Type One: The Grammar Nazi

This method of reviewing is much more straightforward than Type Two. It's proofreading in every definition of the word, and hardly ever will come a time when your client wants you to look over their story for plot holes instead of this. It's also easier for the less creative of us, as it has a strict set of rules that won't differentiate.

So how exactly do you proofread professionally? Spelling errors can be corrected directly , you don't need to put a comment explaining what and why you changed this. Make sure to look for errors in quotation marks and their punctuation. These can make or break a story's professional look, and thus it's readers. I would recommend keeping an educational site about grammar in the next tab open, for when there's something you're unsure about. If there's a certain character who speaks with an accent (thinkin', I got me a so-and-so, etc.), put a comment before changing this. (Sometimes, even if the character is intended to speak in a way that defies the laws of grammar, the author may still make a typo or error in their speech. It's your job to catch those.) If a sentence feels off, you should note that as well.

If you're using GDocs, I recommend using their suggesting option (upper right corner) to edit. It lets you edit the document but shows what you have changed, and lets the author undo the change if necessary.

Type Two: The Mary Sue Killer

Not every writer wants you to find plot holes. Some of them simply want you to look over their work, make it look professional, and let them work on the story themselves. You should be able to do that. However, if you are wanted to edit this way, here's the way to do it.

Firstly, never make edits directly to the doc (unless you're using the suggesting feature of GDocs). You're not the writer. They are, and if you're recommending a change to a red-and-black OC, that's all you should be doing- recommending. This is something you should mention though- they may not have noticed it in the thrill of writing.

If you read a sentence that sounds off, or could be rearranged to flow better, these are good things to note. Paragraphs can be like this too, and you should point this out if you see a paragraph that could work better below the first one, should be elaborated on, or should be taken out entirely. If you see something that would work better rewritten, say why you think so in the comments and put the rewritten piece there as well. Sometimes a writer will use a particular word many times over the course of their writing, and this is something you can correct. I recommend keeping a thesaurus on hand!

A writer sometimes has a character say something so ridiculously out of character that it’s jarring. When you run into something like this, make sure to offer an explanation and a replacement. If you think the author is trying to be funny but it’s unclear, ask them. Don’t immediately delete it, either- sometimes it can be clarified and salvaged.

That goes for anything confusing- if you think that something doesn't match what’s happened before in the story or you’re puzzled about which character is speaking, bring it up. The author may have meant one character and accidentally typed another. For example, with a story I recently edited, two characters were speaking in a bar, but one had a code name unknown to the other. She was referred to as the name the other character knew her as in her mind, and I was completely lost. It was eventually fixed.

I personally recommend knowing how to review both ways, as it will make you instantly that much more in demand. Try doing only a little bit of one you’re not as good at. Hopefully, this will make your reviewing more direct and to a science.

Captain, out!

3995279
This lecture is about editing, not reviewing.

3995360 What makes you say that?

3995383
And the people who have used it that way are wrong. They've been wrong since the beginning, and continuing to be wrong for a few years doesn't make them right.

3995389
A review provides an overview of a work's various strengths, weaknesses, appeals, etc. You're talking about correcting every little thing and pointing out every little problem by making corrections on a file that isn't even on this site. No matter how you look at it, that's editing, not reviewing.

And just as an aside, that downvote on the first post wasn't me.

3995425 I appreciate your comment. I was under the impression that writers wanted a reviewer to "correct every little thing", or at least point it out. That's certainly what I've needed and found for the reviewers for my stories.

3995500
As tempting as it is to argue semantics with you, I have better ways to spend my time, and I'm sure you do, as well.

I disagree with you, and I'm certainly not conceding anything, but I'm content to let people read what we've already said and come to their own conclusions.

3995516 Thank you for not getting into a huge hissy internet fit. It's refreshing to see that not happen for a change. And thank you for sharing your opinions as well. I can look at it a new way now.

3995566 Nah, that wasn't clogging! That was you joining into a civilized internet debate that I'm quite honestly glad I've had. Also, if you hadn't been in there to stick up for me, I probably would have slunk into a corner of the internet somewhere because I thought that Prak was mad, or something silly like that.

3995279

Honestly, I feel a reviewer should focus on every aspect of the story. Grammar, story structure (plot, characterization, etc), immersion, etc. Having a reviewer focus solely on one thing isn't terrible at all, but it means they fail to cover the rest of the story for the author. If a reviewer just reviews how the author characterize Twilight or Pinkie Pie, then the author would have an idea to improve their character writings for them, however they wont know if the grammar is bad, whether the plot was weak and full of holes, etc. I get that you're just pointing out different types of reviewers, and that's fine, but if you're going to review a story, review it right. Cover everything. Spend some time with your reviews rather than typing 300 words and going "I done did good, dad."

3995644 I know what you mean, but there are a number of reviewers that I know that aren't as good at reviewing for the story structure. That's not to say they shouldn't work on it!

I can't claim to be an experienced reviewer, but I have written something and reviewed several stories. The School for New Proofreaders is a new group that I think should be more popular, and I'm trying to do my part to get it off the ground.

3995279

It's proofreading in every definition of the word, and hardly ever will come a time when your client wants you to look over their story for plot holes instead of this.

It's also easier for the less creative of us, as it has a strict set of rules that won't differentiate.

You're saying some dangerous things, I feel.

In regards to the former quote, the sorts of reviewers that would actually be taking hard looks at mechanical or story elements (i.e. for the benefit of the author rather than the benefit of the potential reader) are often expected to point out all of what is wrong with a story in "either" category (and I say "either" because I don't consider it all to fall into only two categories, myself—I'll be consistent with your interpretation for readability's sake, though). It could be argued that proofreaders are a subset of reviewer, but if an author is coming to you in your capacity as a reviewer rather than specifically in your capacity as a proofreader, you're likely expected to be able to do it all. At the very least, you're probably expected to say what things you're not mentioning because you lack the skills to—otherwise, an author might, say, assume that there's no problems with the story's characterization only because you made no mention of it.

As to the latter quote, about the strict rules, that comes off as too oversimplified a way of looking at it. Rules can vary by region and context and Manual of Style, but your wording implies (at least to me) that a proofreader/reviewer need only know one set of rules and doggedly adhere to it. It's a heck of a lot harder to get right than you make it out to be.

I take issue with a couple of other things, but to a lesser extent.

Spelling errors can be corrected directly , you don't need to put a comment explaining what and why you changed this.

First, as 3995360 already noted, all the advice in this vein is obviously for editors and other folks who have direct access to story documents, so it's not that much good in the context of general reviewing. Looking past that to the advice itself, though: if the spelling error is one that the author makes consistently, you certainly should make a note of it to them, explaining why their version is erroneous. If an author is stuck in a bad pattern, we want to break them out of it, not make extra work for ourselves (or other editors/whatevers) in future stories where he/she makes the same mistake again.

Make sure to look for errors in quotation marks and their punctuation.

It would be more helpful of you to link Ezn's guide or some such thing, at this point. If you're going to mention something that we as reviewers need to watch out for and then not go into any detail whatsoever, it would be best to point us to somewhere that does. On that note: Reviewers, never be afraid to link sources for the information you're giving an author! If he or she has questions beyond what you specifically covered (in terms of mechanics, at the least), they need not always be asked to you.

If there's a certain character who speaks with an accent (thinkin', I got me a so-and-so, etc.), put a comment before changing this.

As far as I'm concerned, stylistic things like accents—especially in terms of something as simple as "-g" omissions—need not necessarily be changed. That's something to be discussed with an author if it gets to be too much, of course, but I'm not even sure how this falls under your banner of "Grammar Nazi" responsibilities. Style is style.

And the rest of your lecture boils down to "comment on things you don't like". It reads more like a call to get over a fear of speaking out than a guide on how to review/edit; it's far too vague for the latter. I think you may have inadvertently falsely advertised your thread when you said it was the lecture to look at if one is interested in broadening one's abilities—not to mention that it's titled "Types of Reviews" when it's actually about two types of reviewers, if that.