This month's discussion was inspired by the Review Award Committee's review tips thread; I suggest you go check it out if you haven't already.

This month, the RAC has started small, with a couple of suggestions (definitely take their advice on using a word processing document if you don't do that already). But also, very importantly, they quoted the SPEW rules for expected standard of review. I will requote it here:

III. Members’ reviews should include some or all of the following:

-> Grammar and/or spelling corrections.
-> Comments on writing style, canon accuracy, and character and plot development.
-> Use specific examples from the story to illustrate a point.
-> If criticism, be worded in such a way as to be helpful to the author, rather than hurtful.

Members’ reviews should NEVER include:

-> Incorrect grammar or spelling.
-> Personal insults against the author.
-> Put-downs or criticism that is unlikely to help the author.
-> Excessive use of exclamation points or a single word repeated many times.
So, this month our discussion will be a self-evaluation - how well do your reviews measure up to the expected standard?

Some things to consider in your post:

  • Do your reviews include what "should" be included in a SPEW review?
  • Do your reviews include what "should NEVER" be included in a SPEW review?
  • Other aspects of your reviews not explicitly outlined in the rules that you feel are either strenghts or weaknesses
  • What you feel you can do to improve your reviews
  • Excerpts of your reviews to enrich the discussion.* Use them as examples of any of the above discussion points, for issues to comment on, as evidence to support any statements, etc;

*I want to see at least one or two review excerpts (of reviews you have written) in your post.

You do not have to answer each question specifically/use questions as headers for your post. They are just guidelines. In fact, I prefer if you post using your own structure (which often involves a complete lack of structure But I love train of thought; especially SPEW trains of thought.)