When it comes to critique, I vary my methods depending on the way the material to be critiqued is presented to me. On a forum such as this one, I will quote the text, with my suggested changes in red. I will then give reasons why I liked the material, and give any further explanation as to what I would change or why I suggested a specific change. I usually finish by stating what I would suggest the writer keep in mind. I feel that process is perhaps too vague, and I should quote the material line by line and provide commentary. However, when I am given a document through e-mail, I utilize a more specific system, and it's that system I'm concerned about. I read through the material, and will make note of things using a color-coded system: I love this! Keep it. This is good. Keep it. This is alright, but I might change something. (In yellow, though doing that here made it impossible to read.) This could stand to be rewritten, in my opinion. This should go. For specific changes I would make, I use bolded red. I make commentary beneath each sentence, explaining why I liked/loved/disliked/hated it, obviously with tact. I then put my general notes at the beginning or end of the material. I've received criticism of my color coding as "being over the top", but I thought that it would be helpful to know what I feel about each given line, instead of just marking that which I disliked. I'm having second thoughts, and would appreciate opinions.