Printed from https://mathguy.writing.com/main/authors.php/action/reviewers
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 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.
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 like to go in depth on how I felt whilst reading it. I'll point out where I was tripped out of my flow by sentence structure or oddity. What confuses me. What intrigues me.
Examples can be seen in my recent reviews.
Happy to review privately on request. Default will be public.
Unsentimental. I focus on the kinds of craft issues that will keep a writer from being taken seriously and prevent them from fully expressing their vision.
For more information, see "Writing Hurts: Review Forum"
I will not give a very structured review; It will be just me typing out what I think about the piece, generally how well I think it accomplished its goals, what I think the goals are, and also generally a couple of notes on possible minor tweaks to the piece to make it slightly better.
I dissect stories like a surgeon with a poet’s hands—probing the emotional marrow, not just the bones. My reviews prioritize thematic resonance, psychological authenticity, and prose that feels before it explains. I’ll ask why the rain in your story smells like regret, or how the silence between lovers becomes its own character. Technical critiques (pacing, grammar) come only if requested—I’m here to unravel why your story haunts, not just how it functions.
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.
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.
In particular I can help with wording and flow issues. I give constructive feedback on the general feel, plot holes, and where you may need more or less detail in your work. My feedback is (sometimes brutally) honest, but is aimed at helping you improve your work. If I don't like your work I probably won't review it, so please take any criticism as a form of praise.
I try my best to read everything on Writing.com with great care. My reviews always include a first impression, my feelings about theme and structure and where appropriate, some thoughts about possible revisions.
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.
I'm more interested in the flow and style of a story. Does it read well, am I hooked on the story and the characters? My grammar and spelling are good, but I'm by no means an expert however, I can see some things that might get missed. I've been there, written something up and missed stupid little things.
All Writing.Com images are copyrighted and may not be copied / modified in any way. All other brand names & trademarks are owned by their respective companies.
Generated in 0.21 seconds at 9:28pm on Jul 01, 2025 via server WEBX1.