I've done a couple of reviews as apparently I needed to do some before I can post my work, I've sent them to the admin that closed my thread for guidence, although can anyone suggest a few basics about reviewing for future reference whilst I wait for him to get online? Thanks in advance.
There are several threads on the subject in this section, and I'm sure one or two are pinned somewhere. Take a look at those, and read some of the ones in the Review Room. Reviews are in many ways an individual art, and the best way to learn is by reading and writing them.
Whenever a thread is closed for not having met the critiquing requirement, the post at the end of the closed thread contains a link to this post: Constructive Critiques. It explains what is expected.
As was mentioned above, critiquing is an individual art, and you must develop your own style. That being said, it can't hurt to try to point you in the right direction. Personally, when I critique, I start by simply reading through the passage without any thought as to what I would fix. I then go through it again and split my thoughts into two categories: mechanical errors and reader opinion. Mechanical errors are obvioius: simply mark any type-os or poor grammar that is not intended. Reader opinion is more personal critiquing. What about the story irked you? What did the writer do that you liked? Did you find some of the wording (although gramatically correct) to be awkward or confusing? Did you like the plot/ plot development? Point out some of these things and perhaps state what could be done differently and why. I would also highly recommend following Cogito's link. It is quite descriptive and helpful
