My fello Moderator Cogito thinks that its a skill in itself to review someone elses work.
An idea has popped to mind on this.
For those of you who've just tuned in, here's what it's all about. There has been concern on these boards in recent weeks that the review process on the board isn't all it could be. So, the great experiment is proposed. The intent of this experiment is to provide an opportunity for reviewers to focus their attention on a given story, and for the reviews themselves to be reviewed, in the hopes that we'll all learn better ways to critique!
The system works as follows.
Stage One: A Story is nominated, and its Author commits to the ARP. The following criteria must apply: the Story must be a complete entity (but may be one of a series); a reasonable attempt at spellchecking must have been made; the Author may not have had any work ARP'd recently (to favour writers who haven't been reviewed yet).
Stage Two: A moderator (probably Hulls Raven, Cogito) stickies the Story thread for all to see.
Stage Three: The Story remains stickied for one week, in which anyone who wants to may review it. The writer may choose to respond to comments or not. This time period of one week may be shortened if the thread is quiet. (To support the Advanced Review Process, please add a related comment to your signatures!)
Stage Four: The Story is unstickied. The writer has a further week to create (at least) two posts, one (or more) containing a new draft of their story and one (or more) responding to each review, stating where the writer agrees or disagrees with each comment made, and how the comment affected their redraft.
Stage Five: The thread remains available for people to discuss the experiment - what kinds of comment are most helpful? What writing techniques does this writer in particular need to work on? How, in future, does a reviewer determine that need and should do they suggest it?
And at Stage Four, the process may begin again!
You need to be logged in to comment