The Writing.Com members below are accepting review requests and ready to review your item! Peruse the list, check out members' review styles and request a review from anyone who seems like a good fit for your item.
I have experience looking for consistency. I fully believe in Keep It Simple & Succinct.  |
Geoff 
(minimum 1,000 GPs)
| I don't like using a template. I don't like correcting spelling. I don't like correcting grammar. I don't want to be your editor. I enjoy discussing what I have read. I am very happy to tell people what I have liked and what I have disliked. There is not a lot that I dislike. |
| Casual, friendly. I'll point out typos when I see them and make suggestions about quality, characters and logic, besides telling you how I feel about the piece. |
| I focus on plot and characters. Stories I really get into I break down looking at grammar and spelling. I am honest to the core of my reviews and I like to extend as much grace as I can to new writers (cause we've all been there). As far as star ratings go:*Five stars means I think you can publish it.*Four and a half stars means I think just a few changes need to be made (mostly spelling and grammar).*Four stars mean there is something either in the plot, or characters, that aren't working.*Three and a half stars means it's above average for a WDC item, which means revise it once and then call me.*Three stars mean it's an average WDC item, which means revise it once, or twice, and then call me.*Two and a half stars means it's below average for a WDC item, which means something major to the story isn't working.*Two stars means most everything has gone wrong.*One and a half stars means that the only redeeming factor is the premise.*One star means WTF! |
| I will review for grammar and usage, but if things are too far out of whack in that regard, I may suggest that the author study these elements of writing, rather than pointing out each issue. I look for sentences that flow easily, and can make suggestions toward that end if the author desires. About 4000 words max, please. |
| As a reviewer of your work, I will first look for identification in what you are presenting. When a reader can truly identify with the writer, emotion sets in and the story becomes a part of the reader as well as the writer. |
| I have a form I use for reviews. I look for a Goal, Motivation, Conflict and Resolution. It also allows me to tell what I liked and what I thinks needs improving. In my reviews I may make suggestions by adding my take on what the author is trying to say. Purely a suggestion to take or leave as needed. |
| I like a review that makes me edit, even if it bothers me or offends me. So I look at your piece with, "What would I change to make this better and why?" And I write down most of what I think... the limit being how much you paid, more than how much you can handle!
And of course there's no guarantee that my advice won't make it worse. Well, except the long list of bestseller credits-- oh, I haven't published them yet.
But feel free to request a refund if I really like your piece. It's happened, sometimes I'm in too good of a mood and I think your work is perfect. If it was, you'd be submitting it for a royalty advance... praise is nice but it's like Chinese food, you need more in an hour. Whereas critique sticks to your ribs... |
| I look at the title, premise, overall structure first. Then I see how it makes me feel. After that, I might comment on little errors which are easily fixed. |
| Casual for the most part. I will point out errors I see and offer suggested corrections. I like to focus on the content and formatting of the item. I love providing helpful comments and feedback that may improve the item if acted on. |
| In a single word, thorough. I will turn your piece upside down, shake the change out of its pockets and look at even the most minute details. I can be technical but will do so when emphasizing a larger point about the piece as a whole. |
| I don't know what my style is, but I point out what sticks out at me. |
| I am thorough. The technical aspects are important to me as much as if the story makes sense. The word "cruel" has been used before when responding to a review I've given, but in an appreciative and kind way. |
| Disclaimer: I am not good at remembering to do requested reviews. Often I have busy things going on with work and my own novels, so sorry if I decline or don't remember to do a review in the short time given. Just a warning.
When I review: Long. Depending on the type of story and reason for review I tend to get anywhere from 4,000 characters to on the rare occasion over 10,000.
I will make overall comments, technical points and even offer sources when necessary but a lot is dependent on what I'm reviewing. I can even do a full edit but that's take a lot of niceness and time. |
s
(minimum 2,000 GPs)
| Minimalist. Focus on technical. I also look at how a work would fit into the traditional publishing landscape. I don't use a template.
Warning: I am Australian, and so cultural differences may apply. |
| Honest and critical reviews offered. I look at all components of story-telling: setting, dialogue, characterization, conflict and resolution. I will not generally do a line-by-line edit, though I will point out minor errors. If a piece needs a complete rewrite for grammar and spelling I will tell you so. I do not sugar-coat. I try to be insightful and will offer honest suggestions where I think are necessary. |
| I have a review template that is only used for in depth reviews, usually those that are specifically requested. These will be as comprehensive as I can manage, including everything I have noticed in reading the piece. Most of my reviews, however, are more in the nature of reactions to the piece with brief notes on things I find particularly good and suggestions on dealing with any obvious flaws in the writing. |
| In depth, detailed, and supportive. |
| Please do not ask me to review your item if you do not want an honest response. I tend to be blunt, but if I can't say anything nice or don't understand your piece, I won't review it. I believe in the peanut butter sardine sandwich approach to critiquing work...something good, something bad, more good. |
| My goal is to give a detailed, organized review that highlights the positive characteristics of the work, while also touching on any areas that might benefit from some editing. All of my reviews are, of course, just suggestions and meant to be helpful to the author. I am always available via WDC email if more input is needed on any aspect of the review. |
Printed from https://mem.writing.com/main/authors/action/reviewers
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
